1 Tuesday, 27 March 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
6 Could the Chamber move into private session very briefly.
7 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we are now in open session.
17 Ms. West, good morning. Could you call your next witness.
18 MS. WEST: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning,
19 Your Honours. Good morning, everyone in and around the courtroom.
20 The Prosecution calls Dusan Janc.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, Mr. Janc.
23 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
24 JUDGE KWON: Would you take the solemn declaration, please.
25 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
1 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 WITNESS: DUSAN JANC
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please be seated.
4 Yes, Ms. West.
5 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Examination by Ms. West:
7 Q. Good morning, sir.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. Can you tell us your name, please.
10 A. My name is Dusan Janc.
11 Q. What is your current job?
12 A. I'm an investigator with the United Nations Office of
13 Internal Oversight in Nairobi.
14 Q. Can you tell us when you began your professional career?
15 A. I joined the Slovenian police forces in 1993, immediately when I
16 completed my secondary education, as a regular police officer at a police
17 station. After one year I became a criminal investigator, so in 1994,
18 and since then I have been investigating different type of crimes
19 throughout my career. In 2000 I was promoted within the same area. I
20 started working as part of the organised crime unit at the police
21 directorate Kranj in Slovenia. Then between 2003 and 2004, that was
22 June to June, I was sent -- actually seconded as member of the Slovenian
23 police to European Union Police Mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina where I was
24 assigned to Banja Luka, working as an advisor to criminal investigation
25 department to the Republika Srpska. So this was mission monitoring,
1 advising commission to the local business.
2 Q. And that was for one year?
3 A. Correct. That was for one year.
4 Q. After that year, where did you go?
5 A. In June 2004, I returned back to my Slovenian police force. I
6 again joined the -- I actually returned back to the same Department of
7 Organised Crime Unit. And in June 2006 I joined the ICTY as investigator
8 with the OTP. I left this office in August last year. And I joined the
9 Office of Internal Oversight, or OIOS office, in Nairobi.
10 Q. Thank you. So during the period of time that you worked for the
11 OTP, and that's 2006 to 2011, during that time did you prepare reports
12 for the Srebrenica cases?
13 A. Yes. Throughout my time spent for the Prosecution being as an
14 investigate for the Prosecution, I have been attached to Srebrenica
15 investigation team. And as part of my duties, I also prepared several
16 reports in relation to -- to Srebrenica investigation of the mass graves
17 and identifications of the people who went missing after the fall of
19 Q. Was that first report in March of 2009 for the Popovic case?
20 A. Correct. That was my first report.
21 Q. And when was your second?
22 A. Then I drafted a short corrigendum, I think, month later to that
23 report. In August 2009, I prepared addendum to my report for Perisic
24 trial. In 2010, I prepared another report for Tolimir trial, and I
25 testified in Popovic and Tolimir trial. And now this is the -- the
1 recent one, the latest one, which I put together in December/January this
2 year. Actually, December last year, January this year.
3 Q. You noted earlier that the reports were related to the Srebrenica
4 investigation of the mass graves and identifications of the people who
5 went missing. The most current report that you authored for this case,
6 is that the same subject matter?
7 A. Yes, correct.
8 MS. WEST: May we have 65 ter 23584, please.
9 Q. Mr. Janc, you're going to see a -- the screen in front of you,
10 will, in a moment, show a document.
11 Sir, do you recognise this document in front of you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what is it?
14 A. This is a report I prepared for this trial.
15 Q. Okay. Let's talk about the objectives of the report. Can you
16 tell us what those were?
17 A. They were four objectives of this report.
18 First, to update my previous reports, in relation to the current
19 number of individuals identified as being Srebrenica victims.
20 The second objective was to present which are the new sites,
21 grave-sites, exhumed in the meantime in Bosnia.
22 The third objective of this report was, of course, to update and
23 also to present findings on surface remains. The people who were found
24 or human remains which were found on the surface over these years.
25 And the last section of my report, that was the fourth objective,
1 would be to present to the Trial Chamber the different DNA connections
2 which I found inside the sources which I used to prepare this report.
3 Q. And what were your main sources for the report?
4 A. My main source to put together all these numbers was the ICMP
5 list of match reports which provided to the OTP in December 2010. That's
6 the list which I used to put together those numbers. Apart from that, I
7 also relied on different documents which were provided to the OTP or I
8 obtained from BiH authorities, and also documentary, some documentary
9 evidence from the ICMP.
10 Q. Okay. You noted that the first objective of your report was to
11 present the current number of individuals identified as being Srebrenica
13 Can you tell us how it is that that number needs to be updated.
14 Why does that number change?
15 A. The exhumation process in Bosnia has not been completed yet, in
16 relation to -- to Srebrenica victims. So they are constantly identifying
17 or locating new graves which are related to Srebrenica victims. And,
18 consequently, the BiH authorities is now in charge to exhume them, to
19 conduct exhumations of those graves. And, of course, when they exhumed
20 them, certain bodies, body parts are found within these graves which need
21 to be identified. And the identification process, the DNA identification
22 process is done by the ICMP, and this has been going on, actually, on --
23 since 2001, when the ICMP commenced its work. And since then, whenever
24 we get new updated version of the ICMP data, we will get additional
25 numbers or additional individuals found as being identified in the
1 meantime. And that's why my report needed to be updated that reflects
2 the current number of identified individuals.
3 Q. Now, you noted here that they are constantly identifying or
4 locating new graves which are related to Srebrenica victims.
5 In your most recent report, did you identify any new graves that
6 have been found?
7 A. Yes. There are two new sites, two new mass graves, in addition
8 to my previous report, which is the last -- which is, actually, 2010
9 report prepared for Tolimir trial, and those two sites are Bisina cave
10 and Zalazje.
11 Q. Sir, before 2001, what entity was responsible for doing
12 exhumations in the region?
13 A. Before 2001, the exhumations were done by the ICTY in the region.
14 At that time, the exhumation process by the ICTY stopped and everything
15 was handed over to the BiH authorities. And since then, since 2001
16 onwards, the BiH authorities have been involved and have been conducting
17 these exhumations.
18 Q. And are those authorities, are they now known as the Bosnian
19 Institute of Missing Persons?
20 A. Correct. At that time, it was BiH Federal Commission on
21 Missing Persons which renamed sometime, I think in 2009 or 2008, to
22 BiH Institute on Missing Persons. And they have been involved in these
23 exhumations, I can confirm that, yes.
24 Q. And do you know who Amor Masovic is?
25 A. Amor Masovic has been the head of this commission and now
1 institute throughout.
2 Q. Now we're going to talk about your report itself. And the first
3 question I want to ask you is: How is it that your report is divided?
4 Tell us about the different parts of your report.
5 A. First, you will find six pages of a kind of summary of my report,
6 where I put together different numbers, tables, and we will go over it in
7 a short while. Then to that summary, or to that report, four annexes are
8 attached; Annex A, Annex B, Annex C, and Confidential Annex D.
9 Q. All right. So we've got the beginning, which is the report
10 itself. You noted it was six pages. Now tell us generally what's in
11 Annex A?
12 A. In Annex A, you will find all the -- the graves, mass graves,
13 individual graves, smaller graves which were so far identified and
14 exhumed in relation to the fall of Srebrenica. In addition you will find
15 the numbers of identified individuals which were found in these graves.
16 Also, I think last part will show you some -- some numbers which
17 I put together based on DNA connections, and we'll discuss that later.
18 I think these are the main topics of my Annex A.
19 Q. And how about Annex B, what does that regard?
20 A. It regards surface remains. You will find in the section I'm
21 talking about the surface remains findings.
22 Q. What's in Annex C?
23 A. Annex C is strictly focussing on DNA connections between the
24 graves, between the primary and secondary graves, or secondary, secondary
1 Q. And, lastly, what's Annex D?
2 A. As I already mentioned, the Annex D is a confidential one.
3 It's -- because it's actually the list of people, individuals, with the
4 names, which are identified so far. So whatever I say, for example, in
5 Annex D -- oh, in Annex A, sorry. When I list how many individuals have
6 been identified for a certain mass grave, you will find the actual names
7 in confidential Annex D.
8 Q. Okay. We're going to go through all these sections in detail,
9 but let's start at the very beginning. We'll start with your report.
10 On the screen you see page 1.
11 MS. WEST: May we go to page 2, please, in e-court.
12 JUDGE KWON: Ms. West, what we are looking at is 65 ter 23584.
13 MS. WEST: Correct.
14 JUDGE KWON: And we were informed there are two other corrected
15 versions to this.
16 MS. WEST: Your Honour, the corrections - and I'll go over
17 those - are only typos that I want to put on the record. But we can look
18 at 23584 and that will be enough for this testimony.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
20 MS. WEST: Thank you.
21 Q. Sir, we're looking at page 2. And in the middle, in bold, it
23 "Srebrenica victims identified via DNA and other methods in
25 And then the number is 5977.
1 Can you please tell us about that number and what it represents.
2 A. This number represents, if you follow the text underneath this
3 number, the 5.942 individuals which were so far identified via DNA by the
4 ICMP. On top of it, we have 35 individuals, as you can see down there
5 here, which were identified before the ICMP commenced its work, so some
6 of those individuals were identified between 1995 and 2001, and those
7 were not re-identified by the ICMP via DNA for various reasons, and I
8 found this number of 35 individuals in Dean Manning report. And I
9 included all those names together. You will find who they are in
10 Confidential Annex D.
11 Q. Okay. So let's backup for a moment. You just mentioned
12 Dean Manning. Who's Dean Manning?
13 A. Dean Manning is a former investigator for the Office of the
14 Prosecutor within the ICTY. He left, if I'm not wrong, 2004, or sometime
15 2005, the Tribunal. And he has been dealing with exhumations. He did
16 prepare several reports in relation to these exhumations, and my first
17 report was basically updating his findings from before. And as you can
18 see the first paragraph on top of the screen, you know, that also this
19 report which I prepared for this trial should be read in conjunction with
20 his previous reports.
21 Q. Okay. So let's go back to the number.
22 We have the total number or the bolded number is 5977. And then
23 you mentioned that the ICMP had identified at least 5942, that number of
25 Why is that number not the same as 5977? What's the difference?
1 A. 5977 is -- includes both, 5942 plus 35.
2 Q. And these 35 identified individuals you spoke about, you
3 mentioned that they were identified before ICMP got involved. How is it
4 that they were identified?
5 A. They were identified, as I was able to -- to find out, through
6 different anthropological methods. And, as I put it here, this is based
7 on ante- and post-mortem data collected by Physicians for Human Rights
8 and International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC. So they were
9 identified by them.
10 Q. Okay. Now we also see another number here, and you say that this
11 number, meaning 5977 --
12 JUDGE KWON: By the way. Do you see 5977 in -- on this page in
13 bold? You referred to that number several times.
14 MS. WEST: I do.
15 JUDGE KWON: Where is it?
16 MS. WEST: In bold: "Srebrenica victims identified via DNA and
17 other methods in graves" and then to the right, 5977.
18 JUDGE KWON: Ah-ha, yes. I see. Yes, thank you.
19 MS. WEST: Thank you.
20 Q. So now we have another number that I want to talk about and it's
21 in the paragraph below, and it says that:
22 "This number also includes 260 unique Srebrenica-related DNA
23 profiles which have not yet been matched to a missing person."
24 Can you tell us about that number?
25 A. Yes, I included 260, those unique Srebrenica-related DNA
1 profiles, which, as it says here, have not been yet matched to any
2 missing person. When -- and this was provided to the OTP upon our
3 request by the ICMP.
4 Actually what those represent, these are individuals which have
5 in not been yet matched to any missing person, but DNA profile have been
6 identified. So we have a unique DNA profile, but the -- the ICMP is
7 unable to match this profile to any of the relatives, to any blood
8 donors, so we actually don't know who that person is. We don't have a
9 name. Why I included them into my report is simply because they are all
10 coming out or human remain remains from those individuals were found in
11 mass graves which we know are related to mass executions, and that's why
12 I included those into my report as well.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MS. WEST: Can we go to next page in e-court --
15 JUDGE KWON: By the way, Ms. West, did you lead Mr. Dean Manning
16 when he was here testifying?
17 MS. WEST: I did not.
18 JUDGE KWON: Could we see the Dean Manning report that is
19 referred to at footnote 4 here. So I -- I'd like to see how those
20 44 were identified in Dean Manning report.
21 MS. WEST: We will have to pull up the ERN number, Your Honour.
22 I think, as you will remember, Mr. Manning had several reports that he
23 talked about. A number of them, I think at least three, regarded issues
24 that do not regard this subject matter. The --
25 JUDGE KWON: So -- take your time, so when you are prepared, show
1 us that page and then ... because he specifically referred to that, I'd
2 like to see that while he is here.
3 Please continue, Ms. West.
4 MS. WEST: Thank you very much, Your Honour. If we could go to
5 page 3 of e-court.
6 Q. So this is the third page of your report.
7 And here we see a chart and I want to go over the headings.
8 The first heading we have: "Mass and other graves."
9 Can you tell us about that, what that entails?
10 A. These are mass and, as you can see, other graves, and by other
11 graves, I mean smaller graves and individual graves which -- which are
12 found so far in relation to the fall of Srebrenica. And these are
13 actually the locations where those mass graves were exhumed.
14 Q. And if we go down that list, vertically down, we see Cerska,
15 Nova Kasaba 96, Nova Kasaba 99. Some of these graves are bolded and some
16 of them are not. Can you tell us what that delineates?
17 A. The bolded ones were exhumed by the ICTY. The others were
18 exhumed by the BiH authorities.
19 Q. Thank you. Now the next column is entitled: "Site code."
20 What is a site code?
21 A. Every grave or every site when they were exhumed or even surface
22 remains when collected on the ground is assigned a certain code before
23 the exhumation commenced. And usually, as we can see here, it will be
24 three letters or several letters and some numbers. And we can see for
25 each of those mass graves what code has been assigned to -- to certain --
1 certain mass -- mass grave, or grave, or location.
2 Q. Who assigns the site code?
3 A. The site codes are always assigned by the team who does the
5 Q. So let's look at 1 as an example. If we can go down a little bit
6 and look at Cancari Road number 1, we see under site code it says "CR01,"
7 but then in parentheses, we have something that begins with KAM. What
8 does this mean?
9 A. You can see several such examples, and on the next page you will
10 see even more of them and they will always be related to non-bolded mass
11 grave-sites. Why? Because initially the ICTY has located many graves,
12 for example, now we are on this page and we are looking at Cancari site,
13 so they located -- the ICTY located 12 different mass graves along the
14 Cancari Road. And they were allocated numbers, starting from 1 up to 12.
15 We can see it here, Cancari Road 1 would be CR01.
16 Later on, those sites were exhumed and we can see for
17 Cancari Road number 1, for example, that one was exhumed in July 2009.
18 At that time, as I already testified, the BiH authorities were conducting
19 exhumations. So -- and this was exhumed by the BiH authorities. At the
20 time they exhumed the grave, they allocated different site code unrelated
21 to what the ICTY designated before and that's what we can see here. The
22 site which was -- this site was allocated the site code KAM14ZVO. So
23 what we can see in parentheses would be the site code which was actually
24 assigned by the exhumation team at that time.
25 Q. Okay. Tell me if I understand correctly. When we see site codes
1 that have two site codes, one in the beginning and one in parentheses,
2 does that mean that the second one was named by the Bosnian exhumation
3 team who exhumed the grave?
4 A. Yes, correct. And this would also mean that all the records
5 which we will see or all the individuals which were found in this grave
6 would be assigned this code. So I won't find any individual on the ICMP
7 list with a site code CR01 as it was designated by the ICTY, but in order
8 to be consistent because the ICTY is using in indictment their own
9 numbers - for example, Cancari Road 1 to Cancari Road 12 - I wanted to
10 present that Cancari Road 1, for example, in order to find out how many
11 individuals is found in this grave, you have to look for specific site
12 code which was assigned by the team who did the exhumation and that one
13 is KAM14 Zvornik, ZVO.
14 Q. Thank you. If we go to the next column from the top, it says:
15 "Exhumation date."
16 I think that is self-explanatory, but why don't you just tell us
17 about that.
18 A. Correct. This is just when this certain mass grave was exhumed,
19 the date or the range.
20 Q. And the next column: "Identified individuals."
21 Under that we have the first, which is April 2010, and then the
22 second column, December 2010.
23 Tell us about those columns?
24 A. These are the two columns and what I wanted to present here is to
25 show how the number -- number -- numbers grow during the time. So what
1 we can see under April 2010 column, these are the numbers or the
2 identified individuals included in my previous report. Let's put it in
3 the report prepared for Tolimir trial.
4 Then we have December 2010, so this data I used for -- in order
5 to prepare this report, so you will find the numbers, how many
6 individuals is identified or can be found on the ICMP list as being
7 identified from these sites at that point in time.
8 So it's just that you can compare how the numbers would be
9 growing over the -- over the years, over the period, actually.
10 Q. Are there occasions where the numbers don't, in fact, grow but
11 actually get smaller? An example of that, let's look at Cancari Road 10.
12 JUDGE KWON: Or 9.
13 MS. WEST: Yes. And thank you, and 9 as well.
14 A. Correct. You would also find such instances where number would
15 be lower. When you compare both ICMP list, you will find less people on
16 one, whereas more on the other. So ...
17 Q. And can -- we'll talk about more about this later. But just in a
18 general way, tell us how that might happen.
19 A. Because ICMP identifies their mistakes, errors. Mostly -- most
20 of those are related, if not all of them, to their errors. For example,
21 they would -- they would have in their -- in their list in April 2010
22 that a certain individual was found in Cancari 9 grave. Later on they
23 would find out that it was not number 9 but number 8, so it means they
24 would change to number 8 and it means consequently the number in their
25 next list -- next list would fall. And that's -- that's basically the
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. So they do identify their mistakes or typos in their data and
4 then they are correcting them.
5 MS. WEST: May we go to page 5, please, of this exhibit.
6 Q. This is just a continuation of your table but it's the end part
7 of your table, and I want to look at the totals at the bottom.
8 So at the bottom of the table it says: "Srebrenica grave total."
9 And again in the column to the extreme right we see that number that we
10 saw earlier, 5977.
11 Now to the left of that there's a smaller number. Tell us about
12 the difference between the two.
13 A. So the right number, 5977, we already saw before and we discussed
14 about it. And now you can see actually the exact locations where those
15 individuals were found.
16 On the left-hand side, 5765, is the number which was -- which I
17 could find on the previous list. So the number grew for almost -- a
18 little bit more than 200.
19 Q. Okay. When you say previous list, you mean the previous Tolimir
20 report; right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Okay. And below that, we see: "Srebrenica surface remains
24 Tell us what those two numbers represent.
25 A. It is the same. We can see how the number grew over this period.
1 And this section relates to my Annex B where I'm talking about surface
3 In this we have the number of individuals so far identified as
4 being collected from the surface.
5 Q. The next row is: "Others."
6 Tell us about this row.
7 A. Others are the ones which I separated because either they're not
8 graves or I was not sure what would -- would that be, or I did not have
9 any information on what would those represent. But regardless of all
10 that, they all -- all these individuals can be still found or -- on the
11 ICRC missing list. So they went missing after the fall on Srebrenica,
12 all those 68 individuals. And as can you see, we have Srebrenica --
13 sorry, Serbia related, so those would relate to the bodies which were
14 found in Drina or Sava river, on the Serbian side, and collected by them
15 after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995. Then we have Kozluk surface,
16 where we have, I think, 12 individuals found adjacent to the execution
17 site Kozluk, down almost on the river. So -- and they were found -- when
18 found, they were on the surface. So I was not sure when they were
19 initially placed there were they buried or not. So that's why I'm
20 uncertain, but because they are so close to the execution site, it's
21 difficult to distinguish, are they found on the surface or killed and
22 buried. That's why I put them there.
23 Then we have Godinjske Bare section, this one relates to the
24 execution which took place in Godinjske Bare, and we have a video, the
25 Skorpion video, about this execution.
1 And then with have to uncategorised site, so for those ones I'm
2 not sure what they do present. We asked -- or I asked the BiH
3 authorities to provide us documentation on those individuals and the
4 documentation we received was either insufficient to make -- for me to
5 make any conclusion or we did not receive any documentation on this site.
6 So this that's why I put them there as uncategorised because I was
7 uncertain what we would represent.
8 Q. All right. And when we add those numbers up, at least in the
9 right hand column for the Karadzic case, we get 6747. And is that your
10 total number for victims related to the Srebrenica events?
11 A. Correct. And I put it here, Srebrenica victims in total, which
12 means these are individuals which you can find on the missing list or
13 went missing after the fall of Srebrenica. So -- but we have
14 different -- different cause of death for at least the one found on the
16 Q. Okay. And we'll speak more about that shortly.
17 MS. WEST: May we go to e-court page 6, please, the last page.
18 JUDGE KWON: Could you tell us, Mr. Janc, why the number for
19 others was reduced?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes. This was mainly -- the main reason would be
21 this uncategorised site because in the meantime, some of those
22 uncategorised individuals have been not identified but I was able to
23 connect them to certain grave. So they would be found up there. So some
24 of them were taken off the list by the ICMP just because they excluded
25 them as being Srebrenica-related victims so -- and these are the main
1 reasons, because the ICMP took them away from the lists or I was able to
2 connect them to certain site.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And 35 individuals identified by
4 Mr. Dean Manning, not through DNA identification, were spread out to
5 individual graves in this chart. Is it correct?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, correct. And we'll see an
7 example how did I count them and how did I put them separately.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
9 Yes, Ms. West.
10 MS. WEST: Thank you.
11 If we can go to page 6 in e-court, which is the final page of
12 just the report section.
13 Q. Mr. Janc, we're now going to start talking about the annex that
14 follows this, which is Annex A, and that regards the number of victims
15 identified, related to the graves.
16 But before we do that, I want to ask you: What was your primary
17 source of information for the results reported in this annex?
18 A. My primary source was definitely the December 2010 ICMP update.
19 Q. And we understand that there's a more recent version of the ICMP
20 update, a January 2012 version. Why did you not use that?
21 A. Correct. There is a recent -- more recent version, the
22 January 2010 one -- 2012 one, and I haven't used that one because simply
23 I received it too late. I received that version or that data two days
24 before I completed my report. So what I was able to do was only to
25 briefly analyse the data and to extract perhaps the -- the number, or to
1 estimate how many individuals, how many additional individuals would be
2 found on -- on the new list in relation to the list from 2010, which I
3 used for -- to compile my report.
4 Q. So you came here to The Hague in December and January of 2011,
5 2012; correct?
6 A. Correct. I was here between beginning of December until 15 or
7 13th of January, in order to put together this report.
8 Q. Okay. And a few days before you left, is that when the most
9 recent version of the ICMP database arrived?
10 A. Correct. Just two days before I finalised my report.
11 Q. All right. But, nonetheless, did you do a basic review and
12 analysis of the January 2012 update?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. And what is the approximate difference between the version you
15 used, December 2010, and the January 2012 version?
16 A. Approximate difference would be 80 individuals. So we will find
17 80 more individuals it identifies.
18 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry, it should read 80.
19 MS. WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, 8-0, 80.
21 MS. WEST: If we could move a little bit down on this page to
22 this last paragraph. It says:
23 "Review of the latest ICMP list of DNA matching reports."
24 Q. Is this where you reported the 80, approximately 80, more
25 individuals that you found?
1 A. Correct. This is my summary of my findings reviewing this
2 latest, January 2012, data.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Janc, besides these two versions, so December 2010 and
4 January 2012, have you analysed earlier versions of the yearly ICMP
6 A. Yes. I have been analysing earlier versions. I would say since
7 2007 onwards. I believe I reviewed every single version or ICMP update
8 which came in to the OTP.
9 Q. Is there anything in the December 2010 version, which is the one
10 you used, that was not in keeping with the information that ICMP has
11 normally provided to you over the years?
12 A. No, they are consistent with their data. So every new version we
13 receive is an update of a previous one. When I say "an update" that
14 would mean, you know, we have new individuals and perhaps we have some
15 corrections made, typos, and that's the key difference between difference
17 Q. But was the December 2010 version you used substantially subsumed
18 into the January 2012 version?
19 A. Yes, I can confirm it was substantially subsumed.
20 MS. WEST: Mr. President, the December 2010 version is
21 65 ter 23682, and I would tender it at this point.
22 JUDGE KWON: 23 --
23 MS. WEST: 682.
24 JUDGE KWON: I'm just confused. Could you tell me the reason
25 why -- what's the point of having that 23682 in addition to 23584?
1 MS. WEST: Your Honour, although it is subsumed into the most
2 recent version, I thought it would be important to have both in evidence
3 in the case that questions would arise. He spoke about very limited
4 differences, but if questions arise as to those limited differences, I
5 think the Trial Chamber should have access to both.
6 JUDGE KWON: Then it would be helpful to highlight them the major
7 differences to understand -- what's the major differences in both. He
8 dealt with it.
9 MS. WEST: May I ask the witness.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 MS. WEST: Thank you very much.
12 Q. So, sir, let's talk again about 2010 versus 2012.
13 Tell us, first of all, you said that there were approximately
14 80 more individuals in 2012. Besides that, what other differences or
15 what other types of differences are there?
16 A. Yeah, unfortunately, I didn't have time to analyse them in
17 detail. What I did -- did do was that I went over the lists yesterday,
18 so -- but, again, it's not a detailed analysis because I wasn't having
19 enough time to do that.
20 JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry, Ms. West. 23682 is an ICMP match report?
21 MS. WEST: I think it's -- excuse me, Mr. President. It should
22 be an ICMP match report from December 2010.
23 JUDGE KWON: 2010. And January report was produced by
24 Mr. Parsons?
25 MS. WEST: Correct.
1 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson, do you have any objections?
2 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE KWON: Very well. That will be admitted.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P4768, Your Honours.
5 MS. WEST: May I have 65 ter 23681. And that's the first page,
7 Q. Mr. Janc, I'm going to ask you about ...
8 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
9 JUDGE KWON: I was told that the -- the exhibit previously
10 admitted "prematurely" hasn't been released yet.
11 MS. WEST: Thank you. It's a CD, Your Honour, and so we'll
12 upload a surrogate sheet for it. It's quite large.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
14 MS. WEST: Thank you.
15 JUDGE KWON: And we should put it under seal, shouldn't we?
16 MS. WEST: Yes. I understand that there's a been a motion filed
17 and it's an open issue, so yes. But for right now, it should be under
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
20 MS. WEST:
21 Q. Mr. Janc, I want to talk you to in a general way about the ICMP
22 database. And it's presented to us in the -- in the form of a
23 spreadsheet. How is the spreadsheet tabbed?
24 A. The recent two, and when I am saying "recent two" it is the one I
25 used for my report and the latest one from January 2012, they both have
1 four different tabs.
2 The first tab relates to victims of Srebrenica.
3 Then is a separate tab for victims related to Zepa.
4 And then we have additional tabs, one where they say "excluded,"
5 so which means that people are not related to these events.
6 And then is additional tab saying inconclusively associated. So
7 they're not certain if those are related to -- to these events.
8 Q. Okay. So I understand there are four tabs. One is Zepa, of
9 which we will not talk about. And one is Srebrenica. In regard to the
10 Srebrenica spreadsheets, how did the ICMP sort the names?
11 A. First, I would just like to emphasise that for my analysis, I
12 used just the Srebrenica tab. I disregarded the other tabs. I have not
13 included any of the other individuals in other tabs.
14 And to answer your question, every spreadsheet, whenever you open
15 it, is sorted by the missing person alphabetically.
16 Q. Okay.
17 MS. WEST: May we have 65 ter 23681. And this is a sample page
18 of which everyone in the courtroom should have a big chart version of
19 this because it's hard to read.
20 JUDGE KWON: I don't think it has been released.
21 MS. WEST: Okay. And we can all work off of this because is
22 shouldn't be broadcast anyways.
23 So this is 65 ter 23681 and it's -- would be the first e-court
25 Q. Mr. Janc, why are we using a sample page from --
1 JUDGE KWON: I would like to make sure that Mr. Karadzic and the
2 Defence has it in front of him.
3 Mr. Karadzic, do you have it? Yes.
4 THE ACCUSED: If that's the one, I have it.
5 JUDGE KWON: Let's continue.
6 MS. WEST:
7 Q. Mr. Janc, we're all looking at a sample page that you put
8 together. Why are we actually using this instead of actually just
9 looking at the ICMP database?
10 A. Because it's so many entries you have in this spreadsheet, I
11 think more than 14.000 entries, and in order to print all those out it
12 would be more than 700 pages, so -- and that's why I printed out just the
13 first page or the first, I don't know, perhaps 30 entries which appear on
14 the spreadsheet when you open it.
15 Q. Okay. We see two colours in the entries. We have like a
16 grey/blue colour and then a yellow colour. What do the two colours mean?
17 A. We have two colours, yes, and those on the original spreadsheet
18 would be the grey, only grey and yellow. The grave -- the grey colour is
19 the background colour, I would say, the ICMP background colour, and this
20 is my understanding, of course. And the yellow colour would represent
21 the individuals which were added to this new list, so these are the new
22 individuals added to their list in addition to their last list provided
23 to the OTP. That's my understanding.
24 Q. We're going to go across the top header and talk about these
25 labels, which was done last week in this court as well, but it's
1 important for your testimony. So let's start with the first one which is
2 entitled: "MP."
3 What does that mean?
4 A. MP stands for missing person. Individuals listed down here are
5 the ones identified.
6 Q. And several of these names we see in the middle of the name a
7 different first name that is in parentheses. What does that indicate?
8 A. Correct. In parentheses we have father's name so it would appear
9 on this list as first name -- actually, first is last name of the
10 individual, then father's name, and then it would be first name.
11 Q. Then we have date of birth, which is self-explanatory. And the
12 third column is protocol ID. What does that mean?
13 A. Protocol ID refers to DNA sample and it is assigned by the ICMP.
14 So every DNA sample would go -- would get one protocol ID. It would
15 refer to one individual.
16 Q. And we'll speak more about this number when we talk about
17 connections. But let's move on.
18 And the next column is case ID. Tell us what that represents?
19 A. Apart from protocol ID, the case ID is one of the -- or was one
20 of the most important entries in order to compile my report, and this
21 case ID would refer to the exhumation site. I see from those numbers and
22 letters and numbers, or codes, where this particular body or body part
23 was found. For example if we take a look into the first one, where we
24 have KAM10ZVO, I know that this person was found -- or body part of this
25 person was found within the Cancari Road 10 mass grave. Then we have
1 certain numbers next to it and those relate to the body part. This is
2 labelled during the exhumation which -- where every single body or body
3 part would get a number.
4 So this particular body part was found in a grave and assigned a
5 sequence number, 1380.
6 Q. All right. So let's stop for a moment and focus on the
7 methodology that you used to come to the total number of victims.
8 MS. WEST: And if we can move to page 2 of this sample sheet. So
9 the next page. Again, this is 65 ter 23681, page 2.
10 JUDGE KWON: Just to be sure, if you read out the last four
11 digits of the ERN.
12 MS. WEST: I will do that, Your Honour. And we are looking at
13 the last four digits, 2186.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 MS. WEST:
16 Q. Can you tell us what your first step was when you were trying to
17 figure out total number of victims?
18 A. What I would do first is that I would sort this spreadsheet by
19 case ID and this is now in front of us an example when I sorted it by
20 case ID. Now we can see that missing person, the first column, is not
21 sorted by alphabetically anymore, but we can see that case ID is sorted
23 Q. Why did you do it by case ID?
24 A. Because now I'm looking for particular grave-sites or particular
25 site codes and trying to establish which individuals are found -- are
1 located in different grave-sites, and that's why I'm sorting them by case
2 ID, because then I'm extracting every single entry into a separate
3 spreadsheet in order to get spreadsheet related to one mass grave, one
4 grave, one location, whatever. So I go through the entire list, through
5 all those 14.000 entries, and I'm extracting or copying or copying every
6 single entry into separate spreadsheet. So now I have a spreadsheet in
7 front of me which would represent, for example, one grave-site.
8 Q. All right. So if we can back up for a second.
9 When we look at case ID and in this example at the top the first
10 several begin with BIS01SEK. Should we understand that those letters
11 represent a different grave-site or a different place?
12 A. So I always look into the first part of the case ID, which in
13 this case is BIS01CEK [sic], and all with the same case ID at the
14 beginning would relate to one grave-site because the number after are, as
15 I already explained, the numbers assigned to different body or body parts
16 during the exhumation. So I would be looking for the first part of this
17 case ID, so this would tell me the site code.
18 Of course, in order to separate and then to find out where those
19 are or what those site codes represent, I need to have a background
20 knowledge or information and, you know, lots of documentation to identify
21 each and every single one. And that's exactly what I have been doing
22 over this year.
23 Q. You mentioned at line 18 CEK. Did you mean BIS01SEK?
24 A. Yes, correct.
25 Q. And do you know offhand what site that refers to? You may not
2 A. No, no, no. I know all the sites. This is Bisina cave, Bisina
3 01 cave, and why I take this one as an example, it's just because
4 Bisina -- Bisina grave, actually this is Bisina grave not Bisina cave - I
5 have to correct myself - because Bisina mass grave appears the first one
6 from -- on the list, if you are sorting them alphabetically.
7 Q. Okay.
8 If we can turn to the next page of the sample sheet. And this is
9 the ERN ending in 2187.
10 You mentioned earlier that you sort them by grave-sites and you
11 create separate spreadsheets per grave-site. Is this one of those
12 separate grave sheets?
13 A. Correct. This is the one which is created when I separated them
14 from the main data. So I get all the -- all the individuals which were
15 found or body parts which were found within one grave.
16 Q. All right. As to this page, 2187, and the following page, 2188,
17 do these two pages represent the sample for that particular site, Bisina
18 cave? Excuse me, just Bisina.
19 A. Yeah. Those all relate based on the case ID. You can see that
20 they all bear the same site code, and those all relate to Bisina grave.
21 Q. All right. If we can go --
22 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
23 MS. WEST: Yes.
24 JUDGE KWON: Let's go back to the previous page, second page,
25 i.e., the page ending with ERN 2186. Do you have it with you, Mr. Janc?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE KWON: You told us that this is a result of your sorting
3 out the database based on case ID and you said this is the first page.
4 Why do we not see all the cases which we see on the separate spreadsheet
5 per grave? All the issues that appear on this first page.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, you are right and I will correct
7 myself. This is not actually the first page. This is some page after.
8 What I wanted to present here -- and, of course, many entries are before
9 that. This is the first mass grave which actually appear on the ICMP
10 list, if you sort it by case ID. But I didn't want to present on this
11 sample page just -- just Bisina, Bisina cave, or Bisina grave, but I
12 wanted to include, as can you see down there, you have different site
13 codes. I wanted to present to the Trial Chamber, okay, this is when you
14 sort it out you will get different entries. And you can see down there
15 you have Bljeceva, that's what I wanted to present. But actually this is
16 not the first page, no, when you sort it by case ID.
17 JUDGE KWON: So is this as a result of second sorting-out
18 exercise or the last page of the exercise?
19 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour. If you are talking about 2186, so
20 let -- let's say, I would sort it by case ID. Then in this case I would
21 go, now, for example, on page number 5, and I would print out this page
22 number 5 just to capture not only the Bisina site but also the other
23 sites which -- which are sorted alphabetically after Bisina.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I take it that this is the page where
25 the BIS -- Bisina-Sekovici grave-site appears the last.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, correct. Because you can see the
2 numbers that are the last one on the list for Bisina site, and then other
3 site would appear.
4 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
5 MS. WEST: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. President.
6 Q. So we can go back to 2187. I just want to, at this point,
7 continue with the header information. The last header we spoke about was
8 case ID. And then the next column is: ID ICMP.
9 What does that mean?
10 A. This is again the number assigned by the ICMP and relates to the
11 missing person.
12 Q. The next is: Site name.
13 What is that?
14 A. This is the site of exhumation.
15 Q. Site co-ordinates. What is that?
16 A. It would tell us where this was exhumed, what is the exact
17 location of the grave.
18 Q. Explain to us what jurisdiction means.
19 A. So my understanding is that this is institution which submitted
20 the DNA sample to the ICMP for further examination, for DNA examination.
21 Q. And at least on this page, we see: All BiH/Federation commission
22 in this entire row.
23 What is that?
24 A. It's the same BiH Commission on Missing Person I was talking
25 about before.
1 Q. And is this the group that was in charge of the exhumations after
2 2001, after the ICTY stopped doing it?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Next is: Date of submission.
5 A. My understanding is that this is the date when the DNA sample was
6 submitted to the ICMP.
7 Q. Date of disappearance.
8 A. This is the date which is attributed to every single individual
9 by the ICMP. They are not strict as to when certain people went missing,
10 because they simply -- if they related to Srebrenica event, they put
11 usually the date of 11 of July because their mandate is different than
12 the ICMP one. On the ICMP list of missing persons you would get much
13 more reliable results as to when these persons went missing.
14 Q. Do you mean the ICRC missing persons list?
15 A. Correct. ICRC.
16 Q. So the ICRC information on this particular column would be more
18 A. Yes, correct. And that's why I haven't relied on any of this
19 data from the ICMP.
20 Q. All right. So now we've come to this last column which is
21 entitled: "Type of report."
22 And before we talk about that, I want to make sure that I
23 understand correctly that the first step in your methodology to come to a
24 total number is to separate, first, by site code or location, grave
25 location, and then create separate spreadsheets of those locations; is
1 that right?
2 A. Yes, correct.
3 Q. What is your next step?
4 A. Now we have this type of report where you can see entries as
5 being main case or reassociation.
6 Q. Tell us what "main case" means?
7 A. Main case is assigned to individual or to -- to DNA -- DNA match
8 or sample which is first related to -- or found first time by the ICMP.
9 So whenever ICMP identifies particular individual for their first time,
10 they would assign this body or body part as a main case. And since we
11 have so many body parts found in these Srebrenica-related graves,
12 primary, secondary graves, usually there are more identification --
13 identifications done for one individual because we have instances where
14 one individual was found in two or even three different grave-sites. In
15 this case, whenever they subsequently identify additional body part of
16 that same individual, that body part would be labelled here as
17 reassociation to the main case. So one individual will always have only
18 one main case, and it may have no, one, or whatever number you want,
20 Q. And so is it possible that when we look at the spreadsheet, there
21 could be duplicate listings of the same name in the left-hand column?
22 A. Yes. You will very often find duplicate names in the left-hand
23 column. And also on this spreadsheet, we can see, if you go down to the
24 case where you can see reassociation on the right-hand side, you will see
25 that person appears twice. Once as a main case and other name as a
2 MS. WEST: May we go into private session just briefly.
3 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
4 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE KWON: So, Mr. Janc, it is impossible for an individual to
3 appear twice as main case.
4 THE WITNESS: Correct. That's my understanding. There is not a
5 single individual on the ICMP list which would appear twice at being
6 assigned twice as a main case.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 Yes, Ms. West.
9 MS. WEST:
10 Q. Mr. Janc, when you were counting up the number of individuals
11 associated with the graves, did you ever count reassociations?
12 A. No, never.
13 Q. And why not --
14 A. That's what I excluded, of course, not to duplicate the
16 Q. And so when you made that count, did you only look at main cases?
17 A. Correct. For example, this spreadsheet we have in front of us, I
18 would further - that would be next step in my methodology - further
19 filter it out by type of report, just in order to get only main cases or
20 extract only main cases from this list, and this would be now the list or
21 the number of individuals found in particular grave.
22 Q. So if we may look at the next page ending in ERN 2188, tell us
23 about this, please.
24 A. This is exactly what you get when you filter out the main cases
25 from -- from that last column. And so this would now represent -- this
1 would be now one of -- of the total numbers used in my report because on
2 top of it, I added some additional individuals. We'll go over that soon.
3 But as can you see, they're all now main cases. So we -- I got rid of
4 all the reassociations so not to duplicate any of the individuals.
5 MS. WEST: May we go to 65 ter 23584, the report, and have
6 page 90 in e-court, please.
7 For the remainder of these exhibits, they're not to be broadcast,
8 please. These are from Annex 12 -- excuse me, Annex D.
9 Q. Sir, this is -- we're looking now at your results for Cerska;
11 A. Correct.
12 MS. WEST: If we can go to page 91 in e-court.
13 Q. And here we have the first page of the Cerska results, starts
14 with the number 1. And this list continues on. And I want to show you
15 the last page of this, which is page 98 in e-court.
16 And here we have names reaching to or -- let's focus on line 138.
17 138 and below that in numbers, those 138 people, what does that
19 A. You can see in total the last number is 149 so this is the total
20 number of individuals so far identified from Cerska grave. And up to --
21 up to 138, we have individuals listed which I found on the ICMP list. So
22 these are all the main cases which I was able to retrieve from the ICMP
23 list as being related to Cerska. You can see they all bear the same case
24 ID which is -- or the same site code, CSK.
25 Q. Tell us about 139 through 144. What are those?
1 A. Correct. These are six cases out of those 35 which were
2 identified before the ICMP commenced its work. So those are identified
3 through other means and represent the six of those 35.
4 Q. And that's the 35 that we spoke about on page 2 of your report;
6 A. Yes, exactly.
7 Q. Now looking at 144 to 149, what do those represent?
8 JUDGE KWON: From 145.
9 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, those last five cases were also examined by
11 the ICMP and data were provided to us by the ICMP, and those relate to
12 the unique DNA provide files which I already told you about, what they
13 represent. They haven't been matched to particular individuals yet.
14 That's why we don't have names here. But we can see, for example, they
15 bear a unique case ID, for example, Cerska 137. So we know in Cerska
16 it's one of the graves which was not disturbed. It's primary grave, and
17 quite exact number of how many individuals there was -- was provided by
18 the experts.
19 So usually there we have cases that one body part represent one
20 individual. So -- and it's -- from the anthropological point of view, it
21 is already obvious that we have -- that we have certain individual within
22 that grave. So, for that one it's very easy. And also it was confirmed
23 through DNA that this individual, for example, Cerska 137, would have a
24 unique DNA, so we are talking about a new person which hasn't been
25 matched to any of the relatives so we don't know who that one is.
1 MS. WEST:
2 Q. So this table regards only Cerska. Did you repeat this process
3 for all the sites?
4 A. Yes. You will find this same -- same sets of data for every
5 single site in the subsequent pages of Confidential Annex D.
6 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I wonder if this might be a good time
7 to break.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 We will take a break for half an hour and resume at 11.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West.
13 MS. WEST: Thank you. May we have 65 ter 23584; e-court page 2.
14 This can be broadcast.
15 Q. This is your report.
16 Now, earlier today, in the paragraph regarding the
17 35 individuals, the President asked you in regard to footnote 4, and he
18 wanted -- the question, or the concern had been looking at the Manning
19 report that was mentioned in footnote 4.
20 MS. WEST: May we have P4504.
21 This is -- e-court page 96, please.
22 Q. Now, this is the page to which you footnoted. This is the
23 Dean Manning report. Can you tell the Trial Chamber how those
24 individuals that you noted in your footnote were identified?
25 A. I think it's written up there, positive identifications. And a
1 brief explanation as to how they were identified. So Dean Manning put
2 the means of identification for these particular individuals.
3 Q. Okay. And that was not done by DNA; correct?
4 A. As I am aware, not. Although some of the samples have been sent
5 to be tested by DNA experts. I think in Rome somewhere. But I don't
6 know for which of them particularly, and I think this was related more to
7 mitochondrial DNA identification which is a different method what the
8 ICMP is doing.
9 Q. Okay.
10 MS. WEST: Mr. President, do you have any more questions in
11 regard to this?
12 JUDGE KWON: How do you reach the number 44, that was my
13 question, from here?
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, we have a subsequent page. One
15 after this one.
16 MS. WEST: If we could go to that page, please.
17 Q. Mr. Janc, how do you reach 44?
18 A. Those, all together, on the previous page and on this page, would
19 be 44 in total. But if I'm not mistaken, I counted them again right now
20 and I reached the number 45. So I'm not now sure why. Perhaps I did a
21 mistake in my report, counting them, or I excluded some of those for some
22 reason, so I'm not quite sure.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. So it would be either 44 or 45.
25 Q. But, nonetheless, this is the report to which you referred in
1 that footnote?
2 A. Yes. This is the exact one, yes.
3 JUDGE KWON: So that number is a total of individuals identified
4 in Annex B of Dean Manning's report.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, correct. They were identified and we can see
6 44 of them, and some of them were then reidentified through DNA by the
7 ICMP. That's why I excluded those -- I haven't counted them as being the
8 ones from Dean Manning report because they are included in the ICMP data.
9 JUDGE KWON: So the number of individuals identified through DNA
10 identification may be nine or ten individuals?
11 THE WITNESS: Correct.
12 JUDGE KWON: But since your testimony will continue, without
13 doubt, tomorrow, could you come with more correct answer with regard to
14 this number.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can recheck them again, and it will be
16 either nine or ten. So it is just the difference of one individual.
17 JUDGE KWON: I also meant the number 35 or 44 or 45. So that
18 should be 35 or 36.
19 THE WITNESS: No. It should be definitely 35.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 MS. WEST: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. When we left off, we were looking at the Cancari table in
23 Annex D. And I had asked you whether you had repeated that table for
24 every grave-site in Annex D, and you indicated yes.
25 But now I want to turn to Annex A.
1 MS. WEST: If we can have 65 ter 23584. I'm looking at e-court
2 page 8. And this can be broadcast, please.
3 Q. So this, again, regards Cerska. And can you tell us how this
4 summary table, or this mini-table relates to the bigger one we saw in
5 Annex D?
6 A. You can see from here that in total I have put the number 149
7 individuals identified so far from Cerska grave, and on the left-hand
8 side I split them into two sections. First what was done or
9 identifications done by the ICMP. In total, 143. And then the others,
10 six of those, which were identified before. And the names are in -- in
11 my Confidential Annex D.
12 Q. And we won't do this, but if you go through the rest of Annex A
13 is this summary table repeated for every grave-site?
14 A. Yes, it is. And in case there were no pre-ICMP identifications
15 made, then the -- only the one line would appear. For example, in this
16 case if there were no Cerska-related pre-identifications done, it would
17 be only Cerska ICMP.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. If we go to subsequent page of this report.
20 Q. Okay. So now I'd like to talk about unique unmatched profiles.
21 MS. WEST: If can we can have 65 ter 23677. And this can be
23 Q. You spoke about this earlier. But please remind us again: What
24 is a unique unmatched profile?
25 A. It's a profile, DNA profile, which has not been matched to a
1 missing person.
2 Q. All right. And this spread -- this table we see in front of us,
3 is this something that was included in the yearly ICMP update, or is this
4 something that was separate?
5 A. This is something which is separate, always separate. It's never
6 included into their data. And this is what I specifically requested to
7 be provided to us. In a way that I provided them a list of site --
8 site -- site codes, saying, Please provide with us with any unique
9 profiles you have for these site codes, and this is the list they
10 provided to us.
11 Q. And you just said that this is never included in their data. Why
12 is that?
13 A. Because their data include only individuals which are matched to
14 a missing person, so -- which are identified. So they have names. But
15 those, obviously, they don't have any connections to any missing person,
16 and they don't have names.
17 Q. All right. So let's talk about this document in front of us.
18 As to -- regards the header. It says: "Source case number."
19 What does that mean?
20 A. You know, to put it in a simple way, these are the main cases.
21 And then we have a next column, these are reassociations to those main
22 cases. If we look into the first entry, that particular individual was
23 found -- or body parts were found in -- in three pieces. It's the same
24 location. On the right-hand side, for example, we have reassociation.
25 So one column underneath, we have two cases which are reassociation to
1 the main case.
2 Q. All right. So source case number, that's really just the main
3 case; right?
4 A. Yes, correct. That's clarification which was provided to us by
5 the ICMP. Because I was not sure initially why they separate those two
6 columns and what do they represent, but they clarified that.
7 Q. And why isn't it just called main case?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Okay. Target case number. That's just the reassociation; right?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And if we look at the very first row, we see a number beginning
12 with ZV. But then you go down to the second row, and it is in the
13 second column for target case number. And again we see a number
14 beginning with ZV.SNA. Tell us how those three rows are related?
15 A. Actually, the ICMP is telling us they are related. What I can
16 see from their data provided to us is that one individual was, if we are
17 talking about the first three entries, one individual was found in --
18 three pieces or body parts of these individuals were found in these
19 three pieces.
20 Q. And as we saw in the Cerska spreadsheet that was in Annex D,
21 these unique unmatched profiles, you included them; is that right?
22 A. Yes, correct.
23 Q. All right.
24 MS. WEST: If we can go to 23584; e-court 2, please.
25 Q. We're just going to go back to your report to link this up.
1 A. And just to clarify, I would always count only main cases.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 All right. And if we go down a little bit on -- this is again
4 page 2 of your report, the middle paragraph. In speaking about the 5942,
5 you wrote:
6 "This number also includes 260 unique Srebrenica-related DNA
7 profiles which have not yet been matched to a missing person."
8 That 260, is that what we were just looking at, was it that
10 A. Yes, correct. This is extracted from that table.
11 MS. WEST: Your Honour, I would tender 65 ter 23677, which was
12 the table.
13 JUDGE KWON: The chart, ICMP unique profile, is only of
14 six pages. But are you saying that the total number of individuals
15 identified as source cases would be 260?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, correct.
17 JUDGE KWON: Can we upload that document again.
18 How many do we have on this page? Around 20.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
20 JUDGE KWON: Then six pages, it would be only 120. Where do we
21 get 260?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, you are right. And I -- I have
23 to explain that.
24 In addition, what I counted as well, there are individuals which
25 are not included or unmatched profiles which are not included into the
1 list provided to us -- I think this list was provided to us in
2 December last year. Because I did request such a list to be provided to
3 us also for my previous reports. For example, for Tolimir one, I did get
4 the same -- similar lists. But that list, at that time, was much more
5 extensive than this one. So it means much -- many more unique DNA
6 profiles were on that list. And when I was looking for where -- where
7 they are, because my understanding was if they are not on the -- on this
8 list unmatched -- of unmatched profiles anymore, they should be included
9 into identification list. And simply, they weren't.
10 So we have a certain number of unmatched profiles which was
11 provided to the OTP two years ago, and now they're missing and they're
12 neither on any of the lists. I inquired this with the ICMP and they
13 provided us a clarification that, yes, they are still unique profiles in
14 the process to be identified. So they were taken off the unmatched --
15 unmatched -- unmatched list but not yet included on that -- onto that
16 one. And that clarification was, yes, they are still unique profiles
17 which will be identified somewhere in the future.
18 So because they -- and I listed clarifications into my footnote
19 on the first page of my report. It's footnote number 1.
20 So this is basically their clarification, saying, We have a
21 certain number of them which are not, at this point in time, included
22 anywhere. But they haven't excluded them as being unique profiles. So
23 combining the two lists, the one from 2010 and 2012, I found out that we
24 have several of them which are not on any lists but I included them to --
25 to my report as well. And if you return back, or maybe you spotted when
1 we have been at Cerska -- Cerska list, there are five unique unmatched
2 profiles and you will see that I noted 2011, so those you will find on
3 this list. And then have you a little -- 2010, those you will find on
4 the 2010 list so -- which was used in my report for Tolimir trial.
5 MS. WEST: Your Honour, I'm going --
6 JUDGE KWON: Does the Prosecution have the March 2009 and
7 February 2010 report on this issue in its possession?
8 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm sure they have.
9 MS. WEST: So I'll withdraw my request at this moment and we'll
10 probably address this at the end.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 MS. WEST: Thank you.
13 Q. Mr. Janc, I want to move now to Annex C, which regards DNA
14 connections between different graves.
15 Can you tell the Chamber why it is that you looked for
16 connections between graves?
17 A. Yeah, we know that all of the biggest mass graves related to
18 Srebrenica event were tampered with at some later point and the bodies
19 removed from the primary location and into the secondary location,
20 secondary mass graves. And doing that, of course, body parts of one
21 individual would be found perhaps in two different locations. And that
22 was very important for my analysis, just to -- to further corroborate the
23 evidence which are already in -- known to the OTP. And the DNA
24 connections is one of the best evidence to prove that certain graves are
25 connected between each other. When I say "connected," it means that
1 bodies or body parts were disposed from one location to another. So
2 following these connections, you will get the pattern or you will get the
3 clear indication and clear evidence of which of those connections are
4 connected between each others. So in that way, that's why I put lots of
5 effort to extract data from the ICMP list to find those connections
6 within the list.
7 Q. So let's talk about the steps you took to do that.
8 What was step number one?
9 A. Yes. When I opened -- again, you know, I started from beginning.
10 I opened the spreadsheet, and I first sorted it by -- by protocol ID.
11 Because, as I said, the protocol ID is unique. It represents one DNA
12 sample which is linked or matched to particular missing person. So for
13 this kind of analysis, I needed to know the protocol ID numbers and how
14 many of them would appear. For example, the same protocol ID, if it
15 appears several times, it would mean there is a connection. Or at least,
16 say, there are several body parts found of one individual. So then I
17 needed to -- to look into further when I found that there are several
18 parts. It means that there are same protocol IDs, for example, five, I
19 have to take a look into the next column which is case ID, in order to
20 identify, okay, are all these five body parts found in the same grave, or
21 are they found in different locations.
22 Q. So let's stop there, and let's go to your sample page. And this
23 is the last sheet. The ERN ends in 2119.
24 MS. WEST: For the record, that's 65 ter 23681, e-court page 7.
25 Q. Do you have that sample page in front of you?
1 JUDGE KWON: In hard copy.
2 MS. WEST:
3 Q. In hard copy?
4 A. Yes, the one which ends 2191.
5 Q. Yeah.
6 A. Yeah, correct.
7 Q. All right. So let's look -- this is a sample page and it has
8 four different examples we're going to look at and let's start with the
9 very first one on top.
10 MS. WEST: And this I assume is not being broadcast.
11 Q. We have one name and it's listed five times; do you see that?
12 A. Yes, correct. And before we go along with this data, I would
13 just emphasise that I have highlighted this certain individuals. You
14 know, the first will be red, then blue, green, and -- and the last one
15 also red, I think. I highlighted them just that we can follow.
16 Q. Okay. So tell us about those first five names.
17 A. You see, as I say, I sorted the protocol ID column first, and you
18 will see that for the first individual, we have five entries. So it's
19 individual, we have five names. So date of birth is the same. Then
20 protocol ID, it's -- you know, I already say -- said that it's important
21 what the number says. So all the numbers are the same. You know,
22 whenever we have reassociation, R is attached.
23 So now when I see this entry, okay, I know there are five
24 different body parts found, identified, so I'm looking at -- into the
25 case ID where I see that we have two different site codes. For example,
1 in this case, Budak 1 and Zeleni Jadar, it's -- it's written 8 but it
2 refers to Zeleni Jadar 4. So it means two body parts of this individual
3 were found in Budak grave; the other three in Zeleni Jadar 4 grave.
4 And for the purposes of my analysis of DNA connections, I have
5 taken into consideration both main cases and reassociations, for obvious
6 reason, because I have to find connections between the graves. But
7 this -- this number is separated from -- from -- from counting the
8 numbers of -- the total numbers of identified individuals. The DNA
9 connection part is totally separated. It shows something different so
10 just the connections between the graves.
11 Q. Okay. So should we understand that this means that there are
12 five parts of this body found in two different places?
13 A. Yes, correct.
14 Q. Let's go down to the next name. It's the same -- well, it's the
15 same name, or names, listed three times. And tell us about this.
16 A. Maybe before I go to this one, I would like to just add on --
17 on -- on the previous one.
18 Regardless of the fact that we have five pieces of -- or five
19 body parts distributed within two different graves, I would count this as
20 one connection. So between grave one to grave two, regardless of that.
21 So if there three or five or whatever how many body parts in a
22 grave, I would just count it as one connection in this case.
23 JUDGE KWON: Or one case of connection.
24 THE WITNESS: Correct. One case of connection. So we will go
25 into the area where we have more. I think we're coming to this example
1 right now and I will explain how did I count -- if you have three body
2 parts found in three different graves, how did I count those. I'll
4 And we have example of this individual, the following one, so we
5 see here what happens, and we haven't touched upon this area yet. Very
6 often you will find within the ICMP data the sibling cases. So like here
7 we have last name of the person, then we have father's name, and then we
8 have two first names. So these are sibling cases, so-called, so which
9 means that the ICMP was able to -- to find one DNA sample, but -- and
10 they actually assigned the number to that sample, which means it is
11 related to one person but they were unable to link that sample to one of
12 two brothers, or three, or even -- we have even four brothers. So they
13 were uncertain who of those two brothers was found.
14 We have -- very often what will happen -- for this particular
15 case, I don't know. But you will find, for example, in next entry,
16 again, missing person would be identified as the same as these two ones,
17 but what will be different will be the protocol ID in that other case.
18 So in this case, if I find, like here, sibling case, we have two
19 brothers, and I find then for those two brothers I have two protocol IDs,
20 I'm able to conclude that both were identified. What I am unable to
21 confirm is which of those two was found in which grave.
22 So -- and that's why I'm saying the protocol ID for my DNA
23 connection analysis is the most important part, or most important
24 information which I am seeing in their data. Because if we go left -- or
25 right to the ID ICMP number, you would see that we have two numbers in
1 this case. So because they cannot distinguish between the two brothers
2 and every single person in their data, missing person, has their unique
3 number, but in this case they cannot distinguish who of those two numbers
4 was found there. They can only say, yes, this is one person, based on
5 protocol ID. The DNA sample, you know, is related to one person.
6 So, a background about this protocol ID. And now we can focus on
7 case ID. In this case we see that body parts of this one individual were
8 found in three different graves; Budak 1, Budak 2, and again
9 Zeleni Jadar 4. In this case we have three connections and I would count
10 these particular graves three times in -- as it relates to DNA
11 connections. So because we have connection between grave A and B, we
12 have connection between grave A and C, and we have another connection
13 between grave B and C.
14 Q. Mr. Janc, we'll talk about different graves and those connections
15 in a moment.
16 Let's finish these examples. And if we can go down to the next
17 example, the one that's in green, if you see that. It's a name that is
18 listed five times?
19 A. Yes, correct. It's similar than the first example. We have one
20 individual found in two different graves, Bljeceva 1 and Bljeceva 2.
21 Q. Then go to the example at the bottom that's in red. We have a
22 name listed three times. What can you tell us about that?
23 A. Yes. Again, this individual was found or his body parts were
24 found in two different graves, Cancari 11 and Cancari 10.
25 Q. Now, at the end of this annex, there are a number of charts, and
1 we're going to move to that.
2 MS. WEST: And the first chart is e-court page 82. These can be
3 broadcast, but everybody also has this in front of them. And the first
4 one we're looking at, the ERN ends in 7276.
5 Q. Mr. Janc, do you have this in front of you?
6 A. Yes. I have this chart in a hard copy, yes.
7 JUDGE KWON: This 7 -- ending -- this sheet ending with 7276 is
8 part of what exhibit, what document? I'm seeing a slight difference.
9 MS. WEST: Yes, and if I can take a moment.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 MS. WEST: This is part of Annex C, Your Honour. And in this
12 chart, what you rightly see are some redactions and the reason that those
13 redactions were made regards the decision that you made in the Manning
14 testimony as to the exclusion of expert reports involving soil, shell
15 casings, and textiles.
16 So for the purposes of this testimony, we've had those redacted,
17 those connections redacted, and they will be redacted for the report
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
20 MS. WEST: Thank you.
21 So we are now looking at the chart that ends in 7276; it's
22 e-court page 82. Annex C.
23 Q. Now in the very top of this chart, we see four boxes. Tell us
24 what those boxes on top represent.
25 A. Yes, these are primary grave-sites exhumed by the ICTY. The far
1 right, we have the actual execution -- execution site Kravica because I
2 did find one connection between that site and secondary grave.
3 Q. All right. And we see lines in red. What do those lines mean?
4 A. And this is a general overview of all connections I found. We'll
5 go into the sub-charts which I created for every single grave. But to
6 get to general picture, the red lines would tell us how many connections
7 I found in -- within the ICMP data which would connect Branjevo
8 military -- Branjevo farm or Pilica to related Cancari graves. So in
9 this case we have 41 cases, 41 connections. The same goes for Kozluk,
10 so --
11 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Janc. There is no problem in
12 broadcasting this.
13 MS. WEST: It can be broadcast.
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We can upload it as well.
15 Yes, please continue.
16 MS. WEST:
17 Q. So you said there are 41 connections between Branjevo and the
18 Cancari graves. Now this actually says "41 cases." So tell us about
19 that word "cases." What does that mean?
20 A. One case would refer to one connection. And one connection would
21 refer to body parts which were found in two different grave-sites.
22 Q. And earlier when we were looking at the samples, you spoke of an
23 individual where that individual was found in two different places but it
24 was more than one part of that individual. Is that one case or more than
25 one case?
1 A. It's one case.
2 Q. All right. And now we see Kozluk and there are 83 cases to
3 Cancari. And this continues on to the right.
4 Can you tell us what the blue lines mean?
5 A. The blue lines underneath we see are the connections, DNA
6 connections between the secondary graves.
7 The red ones are connections between primary and secondary
8 graves, just to clarify.
9 Q. All right.
10 MS. WEST: If we could move to the next page. In e-court, it's
11 83. And in hard copy, it's ERN ending in 7277.
12 Q. Can you tell us what this represents?
13 A. Yes, this is a sub-chart, a more detailed one, that you can get a
14 picture on how many connections we have between the graves.
15 On the left-hand side, again, red line would mean we have one
16 connection between Branjevo farm and Cancari Road 4 secondary grave, and
17 so on and so forth. 28 between Cancari 9 and Branjevo Military Farm.
18 Then can you see the blue lines will connect the secondary graves between
19 each other. And you can get a picture of how many of them are connected
20 to each other.
21 On the right-hand side, we have Kozluk site and related Cancari
23 Q. And you said -- sorry, excuse me.
24 A. Yes. And then underneath, I put the total number of connections
25 for each cluster of the graves. For example, for Branjevo Military Farm
1 we have 268 connections, including the secondary and primary graves
2 connections. Whatever you see on this chart related to Branjevo cluster,
3 the total number is underneath.
4 Q. So let's stop there. Earlier you had said that between Branjevo
5 farm and the Cancari graves there were 41 cases. That's the previous
6 chart where that's at. So now we see this red line that reflects one
7 case, 28 cases, 4, 6, and 2. When you add those up, does that equal the
9 A. Yeah, this is actually the breakdown of what we've seen before.
10 Total number is 41. But this is the breakdown, and total would give you
12 Q. Let focus in on these blue lines. I see a blue line between
13 Cancari Road 4 and Cancari Road 5, and it says six cases. Tell us what
14 this means?
15 A. So that we have that many connections between those two sites. I
16 found that many connections in ICMP data.
17 Q. All right. And this general theory and methodology, is this
18 repeated for all the sites, all the major sites?
19 A. Yes, indeed. It was a little bit more difficult for Kravica or
20 Glogova related primary and secondary graves because it is so many
21 connections. And we may go to those charts and we'll see --
22 Q. Okay. We'll get there. May we --
23 JUDGE KWON: In uploading in the future the chart, please bear in
24 mind so that we can have a more legible one. As you can observe from the
25 e-court, the lines are not visible.
1 MS. WEST: I will make sure.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
3 MS. WEST: Thank you very much.
4 May we go to the next e-court page, which is 84.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could Ms. West please move a little closer to
6 the microphone for the benefit of the interpreters. Thank you.
7 MS. WEST:
8 Q. This is the chart that ends in 7278. And here we see two boxes
9 on top. Can you tell us about these graves?
10 A. Yes. It's again a sub-chart of the general one. On the
11 left-hand side we have Orahovac primary grave-site, and then related
12 secondary graves and the connections between them.
13 Q. And, again, we have the red lines. And is that the connection
14 between the primary grave and the secondary grave?
15 A. Yes, correct. And you might have noticed different colours,
16 different boxes, different colours. For example, Orahovac, Lazete 2 and
17 Hodzici Road 3, they both have brown colour, whereas the others are
18 green. So whatever is in brown colour, these are the graves exhumed by
19 the ICTY. The green colours would represent the graves exhumed by the
20 BiH authorities.
21 Q. And so when we look over to Petkovci dam and we see the secondary
22 graves, we have four in green and one in brown. And so that one in brown
23 was exhumed by the ICTY; is that right?
24 A. Yes, correct. Dam near Petkovci was exhumed by ICTY and also
25 Liplje 2, secondary grave.
1 MS. WEST: If we can move to the next e-court page, which is 85.
2 And in hard copy that is 7279.
3 Q. This, on top, says Glogova 2, Glogova 1, and Kravica. Tell us
4 what this represents.
5 A. This is another sub- chart. That one relates to Glogova mass
6 graves and related secondary graves.
7 Because you will see we have so many connections and so many
8 graves related to this site, I first wanted to present you how many
9 connections we have between primary and secondary graves. That's why we
10 only have red lines on this chart.
11 On the far right corner, up corner, you will see Kravica
12 warehouse and it's again in different colour because this is related to
13 execution point. We did find one connection between Kravica warehouse
14 and Zeleni Jadar 2 grave, secondary grave.
15 Q. And if we were to move to the next e-court page, 86, and the next
16 chart, 7280, are these the same locations?
17 A. Yes, correct. Everything -- all locations are still the same on
18 this chart. What is different is that here it is represented --
19 actually, the secondary graves connections are represented. So how many
20 connections we have between secondary graves.
21 Q. And is that why we only see blue lines on this page?
22 A. Correct. Because the blue represents secondary grave connection.
23 Q. And, lastly, if we can go to the next page. It's the last page
24 of the handout, 7281, tell us what you did here.
25 A. Now, you can see the merged -- those two Glogova-related primary
1 and secondary graves connections merged in one. And you see the network
2 of connections which were established between those graves.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Janc. Now all this information that you have put
4 in visual form, did you also put these in table form in your report?
5 A. Yes, correct. It's part of Annex C.
6 MS. WEST: If we can have 65 ter 23584; e-court page 48.
7 Q. And here we see a table that says: "DNA connection between ..."
8 And then in a second column: "Number of DNA connection cases."
9 Tell us about this table.
10 A. Yes, this is the table, and you will find exactly the same
11 connections in those charts. And originally in my report this table is
12 in colour, and they would be the same colours as -- as -- as the one in
13 my chart. So this is in black and white on the screen. But, for
14 example, Orahovac 1, Hodzici 5 would be green and so on and so forth. So
15 each colour would represent something which I described in my report.
16 Q. Okay. So the colour corresponds between your table and the
17 charts themselves.
18 A. Yes. It should, although I have to check.
19 Q. Okay. And we can come back to that.
20 A. Yeah, yeah.
21 Q. All right.
22 MS. WEST: May I have 65 ter 23584; e-court page 40.
23 Q. So now that we've looked at the total numbers in each grave-site
24 and the connections from the primary to the secondary and, in some cases,
25 secondary to secondary, I want to look now at how those grave-sites are
1 connected to the execution sites.
2 So on e-court page 40 of your report - if we can go down a bit,
3 please - we have another table. The first column is: "Execution site."
4 Can you tell us what this table represents?
5 A. Yeah, it's again a breakdown of connections which I found
6 examining the data. This table will tell us how many individuals is so
7 far identified, if you combine primary and secondary graves, actually, if
8 you count both together, and then you link them to the execution site.
9 So we know which execution site is related to primary and secondary
10 graves. And this is very well reflected in the charts which we just
11 presented and it's based on DNA connections.
12 Q. So we're looking at right now regards Kravica. If we can go to
13 the next page, which is page 41, we can see that the Kravica total is
14 1374. Then we have Orahovac, appears the total is 841. Petkovci, 815.
15 Kozluk, 815. Then Branjevo and that actually goes onto the next page --
16 JUDGE KWON: Before we move on, Kravica said "and others."
17 Kravica and others.
18 MS. WEST: Thank you very much. That's correct, Your Honour.
19 Q. And the next page for Branjevo, that's the number of 1735.
20 Mr. Janc, I noticed that at least three of these numbers are in
21 the 800s. One is 815, one is 815, one is 841. Branjevo is 1735, almost
22 the double of 800.
23 Can you tell us what the significance of that is?
24 A. It was quite significant to me putting all these numbers together
25 to come to a figure of 800 or almost 800, around this number, for every
1 site. Now I'm talking about the sites Orahovac, Petkovci, Kozluk, and
2 Branjevo-Pilica, excluding Kravica, but all those five sites -- and we
3 know that Branjevo-Pilica, they are actually two sites included into this
4 primary grave because they include the individuals killed at Branjevo
5 Military Farm also individuals in Pilica Dom. So and one -- 1700, it
6 would be a little bit more than double a number of 800. And it was a
7 kind of -- you can see from these numbers there was a pattern how many
8 people would be killed at a particular location, and thinking of that,
9 you know, the -- and the only logical explanation for me would be know,
10 you know, okay, this is because that many perhaps transportation means
11 were at the -- their disposal for transporting prisoners to one
12 particular location, and that's my -- my conclusion.
13 MS. WEST: May we have 65 ter 01998, please.
14 Q. This is a document. It's dated July 13th, 1995. The
15 1st Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade, and it's to General Gvero from
16 General Tolimir.
17 Have you seen this document before?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. And the first paragraph -- above the first paragraph it says:
20 "Accommodations of prisoners of war."
21 And it says:
22 "If you are unable to find adequate accommodation for all
23 prisoners of war from Srebrenica, we hereby inform you that space with,"
24 and there's not a known word," has been arranged for 800 prisoners of war
25 in the 1st Podrinje Light Infantry Brigade in Sjemec."
1 Tell us what significance that is for you?
2 A. You know, it's the number of 800, that one stands out. And when
3 I put together these numbers, I did remember that document, and I linked
4 the two. Because we can see here that 800 is the number most probably
5 which can fit in their transport means at the time. So -- and they were
6 making up space in Sjemec area which is totally different area away from
7 Srebrenica. It's close to Zepa, actually. We did investigation on that
8 site and if any prisoners were brought there, and we didn't find any. So
9 those prisoners were never brought there, so we know for the reason why,
10 because they were -- because you can see actually this is dated
11 13th of July, when most of them, except for the Kravica ones, are still
12 alive. And, yeah, my conclusion is that those 80 -- 80 prisoners were
14 Q. Those 800?
15 A. Sorry, 800. And perhaps it not that clear from the original
16 document, the number it can't be seen perfectly, but there is another
17 handwritten version of this same document and you can see the number of
18 800 there.
19 Q. Okay. And that version is connected to this English version.
20 If you continue on this document, it says that:
21 "They can be guarded with their own forces and would use them for
22 agricultural work, maintaining the horse, pig, and sheep farm. If you
23 send them to this sector, this must be done at night using Podrinje
24 Light Infantry Brigade transport and troops. It would be best if this is
25 a new group which has not been in contact with the other prisoners of
2 So when it talks about the horse, the pig and the sheep farm, do
3 you know anything about that? Did your investigation reveal anything
4 about that?
5 A. There was a farm at the time at this place. So that's all we
7 MS. WEST: Your Honour, I move to admit this document.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P4769, Your Honours.
10 MS. WEST:
11 Q. Mr. Janc, I want to go now to Annex B in your report. It is
12 23584, e-court page 44, and this regards surface remains.
13 JUDGE KWON: Just before doing this, just I wanted to confirm if
14 my understanding was correct, Mr. Janc.
15 Shall we go back to Annex C. I take it it's on page 48 on the
16 same document.
17 Yes. And shall we show him the next page. And next page. And
18 next page.
19 So here we see total cases in the number of 885. What I'd like
20 to confirm with you is this: The notion of number of cases is separate
21 or different from that of number of individuals identified. Put
22 otherwise, let me give you an example. If one -- if parts of one
23 individual were found in four separate graves, then you can count six
24 cases of connection.
25 Am I correct in so understanding?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, you're right, Your Honour, you're perfectly
3 JUDGE KWON: So when we talk about 885 cases of connection, can
4 you tell us how many individuals we are talking about?
5 THE WITNESS: I would need to count, but my assessment would be,
6 but pure assessment, around 500, maybe up to 600 individuals.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 Yes, Ms. West.
9 MS. WEST: May we have P03975, please.
10 THE WITNESS: But, yes, sorry --
11 MS. WEST:
12 Q. Yes, go ahead.
13 JUDGE KWON: By all means, yes, please continue.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did find the exact number. It is actually
15 included into my Annex C, where there is an index of all the individuals
16 listed. So if you go further, a few pages further, so you -- we'll get
17 to the actual Annex C index. This one can be broadcast. It's not --
18 because no names included onto it. And the last entry number is 795. So
19 it means this number, 885, would represent 795 individuals.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
21 MS. WEST: So I think now we can now probably turn to P03975.
22 And now --
23 JUDGE KWON: One further question.
24 What did you mean by not counted in the Annex C?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. So I will need a little bit more
1 time --
2 JUDGE KWON: For the record, we are talking about page ending ERN
3 7255. And the number 795 appeared on the previous page.
4 THE WITNESS: Correct, Your Honour. We have these 556 cases
5 which I also found on the ICMP data being connection between different
6 sites but I haven't counted them for purposes of my report. There were
7 various reasons for that and most of them relate -- relate to the
8 connection found between Ravnice 1 and Ravnice 2 grave. With Ravnice 1
9 this is -- actually, these are both primary graves. They haven't been
10 disturbed and they are just --
11 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat the grave name. Name of the grave.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. Ravnice 1 and 2. Those were
13 designated as two separate graves but they are adjacent to -- next to
14 each other, so -- but they were exhumed at two different occasions.
15 So because it is actually not really clear that these are two
16 graves, I haven't counted them as a connection. And then why I excluded
18 Then we have a set of graves which would cover, for example,
19 connections between Glogova 5 and Glogova 7 because this is actually all
20 Glogova 2, bigger Glogova 2 graves, but Glogova 5 and Glogova 7 are
21 sub-graves within the Glogova 2. I haven't counted those.
22 Then we have sets of cases. For example, Liplje 1 and
23 Liplje surface, where you have connection between body parts found in a
24 grave and body parts found on the surface, discovered on the surface.
25 And this was very obvious or very often that that happened in Liplje
1 because, according to my understanding and what I was able to find out,
2 the Liplje graves, which are related to Petkovci dam, were the most
3 difficult to -- to -- to examine because there were so many body parts in
4 it. There were smashed in so many body parts because of obvious reason
5 of the terrain which is at Petkovci which are -- where there are rocks.
6 Because initially people were buried there and covered with -- with the
7 rocks and everything, and many body parts were -- were smashed. So
8 that's why we have so many little body parts found in Liplje grave, and
9 also later on, so many were collected from the ground in subsequent
10 years. So not everything what was exhumed during exhumation was
11 obviously collected from the -- from the area.
12 So this will show us actually there is a connection between the
13 grave and -- and these bones found on surface.
14 Then we have, I think, several of them which I didn't count
15 because they were illogical to me. Illogical because they are
16 connected -- for example, if we take a look into the first one, there is
17 a connection between Cerska and Hodzici 2, Hodzici 3 road. We know that
18 Cerska is a primary undisturbed grave and it will be very unlikely that
19 there is any connection established between those two sites. Connection
20 between Hodzici 2 and Hodzici 3 is most probably a correct one but not
21 back to the Cerska 2.
22 What happened in this particular case, I know we are talking
23 about twins and most probably the DNA or the ICMP was unable, of course,
24 because you cannot distinguish between the twins with DNA examination.
25 So that's why they actually count one person, but I would say these are
1 actually two individuals. Both brothers are found, one in Cerska, one in
2 Hodzici. But still for my purposes I counted only one because they are
3 assigned one main case. So that's why I excluded this one as being a
5 But then we have also connections like entry number 7 between
6 Glogova 5, which is primary grave, and Kozluk 3 and Cancari 3. I would
7 say Kozluk 3, Cancari 3, yes, connection. Glogova 5, Kozluk 3, it's
8 again illogical. Why that happened, I don't know. It would need further
9 clarification. I think I sent question to the -- to the ICMP. They
10 clarified that in a way that there might be labelling mistake. For
11 example, it might happen in the future that, for example, Glogova 5 grave
12 or Glogova 5 site code will be -- will be replaced with something -- with
13 someone -- with something else, saying, oh, there was a typo error. So
14 that's why I excluded, you know, these particular cases as well. Because
15 they are so far away and, you know, especially if you have connection
16 between Glogova site and any of the northern secondary graves, there must
17 be, according to my understanding, something wrong with the actual
19 JUDGE KWON: I want -- meant to tell you to slow down.
20 THE WITNESS: I apologise.
21 And these were basically the reasons why I excluded these
22 individuals, in total 56 of them, but I presented them in my table in
23 order to show everybody what I can find in ICMP data, what I was able to
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
1 Ms. West.
2 MS. WEST: Thank you. P03975.
3 Q. We're now going to talk about surface remains. Can you define
4 that for us. Tell us what surface remains means.
5 A. Surface remains are body parts or bodies which were left behind,
6 never buried, and when -- and found on the surface. Over the years,
8 Q. And in the course of your investigation and your report writing,
9 did you receive information that surface remains were found in the area
10 of the former Srebrenica enclave?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. And from where did you receive that information?
13 A. First, this was -- my first source when I started putting
14 together my initial report, the source was Dean Manning's report because
15 he included surface remains into his report. But he wasn't specific. He
16 didn't list how many individuals, but he just listed some sites where
17 those surface remains were collected over the years. And, of course, I
18 inquired further to get more reliable data on those surface remains. I
19 approached the Bosnian Institute or then Commission on Missing Persons
20 and they provided us a table with all the surface remains cases collected
21 from the ground around Srebrenica towards Baljkovica, so in this area, in
22 Podrinje area.
23 Q. Okay. I'm not going to stop to show you the report, but the
24 sources from which you received that information, that's listed in
25 Annex B; correct?
1 A. Yes, correct. All my sources are there.
2 Q. All right. And we're now looking at a map. And this -- is this
3 a map that you recognise?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. And what do the lines represent?
6 A. This is the route, the line, the red line represents the route
7 which the column -- the route of the -- the column towards free
8 territory, from Srebrenica up to the north.
9 MS. WEST: May we have 65 ter 4779. And if we can have page 14.
10 THE ACCUSED: Is that part of an exhibit, this map? Because we
11 will need it in cross.
12 JUDGE KWON: I think it was Exhibit P3975. It was in map 5 --
13 number 5 in the map book.
14 MS. WEST: Thank you. And this is at --
15 THE ACCUSED: Thank you very much.
16 MS. WEST: Thank you. Page 14 of 65 ter 4779.
17 Q. Do you recognise this map?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. And what is it?
20 A. This is the map created by the same commission, Bosnian
21 Commission on Missing Persons, upon our request and this was based upon
22 the data which provided to me, to us, regarding surface remains. So --
23 and the map would show us the distribution of those surface remains
24 within the area.
25 Q. And we see a bunch of circles and this is in the area of
1 Srebrenica. Tell us what the circles mean.
2 A. The circles would mean where the surface remains were found.
3 MS. WEST: If we go to the next page, page 15. It's a closer
4 version of the same map. This is just closer up.
5 Q. On this, we see right in the middle one area that has many
6 circles. What is the name of that area?
7 A. Let's put it Pobudje area. That's how I also named it in my
8 report. And we can see the big cluster of dots there, so the
9 distribution of surface remains is the highest in this area.
10 Q. And if go north of there, we see another small area that has a
11 high concentration. What is that area called?
12 A. Yes. So now we are referring to the cluster under Zvornik, let's
13 say, west to Zvornik. This area I designated as Snagovo area.
14 Q. And then going even further north of that, we have another
15 cluster. What is that area called?
16 A. That area north of Zvornik is called Baljkovica area.
17 MS. WEST: May we go to the next e-court page which is an even
18 closer version of this map.
19 Q. We see that it is concentrated on one area. What is this area
21 A. This area is called Pobudje area. And then we see some other
22 dots around which are north of Srebrenica or west. Those surface remains
23 would be designated in my report as other -- other areas.
24 Q. In total for your investigation, how many surface remains did you
25 count that were associated with the events of Srebrenica in July?
1 A. 702.
2 Q. And will we see that number in your Annex B?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. I won't go there just now. But I want to give you an
5 example of surface remains that recently came up in court.
6 MS. WEST: If we can go to Sanction, please, and if we can also
7 go into private session.
8 JUDGE KWON: You're not tendering that map.
9 MS. WEST: Yes, I am tendering it. Thank you very much,
10 Mr. President.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that will be admitted -- I mean 65 ter 4779.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P4770, Your Honours.
13 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 MS. WEST:
12 Q. And did you have an opportunity to look into the cases of those
13 six people that I read off? Specifically in regard to where their
14 remains were found.
15 A. Yes, I did. I checked those names against the ICMP list.
16 Q. What did you find?
17 A. I have to consult my notes, but I found --
18 Q. You don't have to read the names off but maybe you can give us
19 the initials.
20 A. Yes. That four of those individuals listed were found on the
21 surface and two of them in graves.
22 Q. Okay.
23 JUDGE KWON: What grave? Do you remember?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes. Let me be specific. Those four which were
25 named by -- by the witness as being killed at that spot, were found all
1 in Pobudje area, so still on the surface. None of them is in a grave.
2 The two of them which the witness was not certain where they ended up or
3 he didn't witness their killing, those two were found in a grave. One of
4 them in Liplje 4; and one of them is either in Hodzici 1 or Lazete 2
5 because we have the problem with the siblings in this case. So in one of
6 those two locations.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 MS. WEST:
9 Q. Mr. Janc, would the information that you uncovered support the
10 suggestion that these people were found in a number of mass graves but
11 were killed in combat in a single location?
12 A. Those people were not found in any of those mass graves. They
13 were just left behind where they were killed.
14 Q. I'm going to ask you about another individual and this is
15 something that came up just yesterday.
16 MS. WEST: May we have P4759, and may it not be broadcast,
17 please. I'm looking at page 2.
18 THE WITNESS: Can I clarify something?
19 MS. WEST:
20 Q. Yes, please.
21 A. In relation to -- I check the testimony of Dr. Parsons last week
22 specifically about this topic, only about this topic. I was given his
23 transcript, and the problem I see with -- with him is related to what he
24 referred as being, for example, the site code attributed to mass grave.
25 So he wasn't correct. Because what he said is that, for example, the
1 site code which was put to him, B.KAM.BR, would be related to one of the
2 Kamenica or Cancari graves, because he identified KAM which would stand
3 for Kamenica. So this is not the case. That particular site code has
4 something else before and after which would mean Bratunac. BR, Bratunac.
5 So we have one Kamenica in the area of where the Cancari Road graves were
6 found, and then we have another Kamenica which is in the area behind
7 Kravica, Kravica warehouse in Pobudje area, and that site code would
8 refer to that location and that's where the person was found.
9 Another mistake he made was in relation to the site code BLIP
10 which he thought it was -- it was related to Liplje mass grave. But it
11 is not. Again, it's B, Bratunac. And the village is called Lipenovici.
12 And this is again in the Pobudje area. You will find all these site
13 codes listed in my Annex B. And you will get much more knowledge about
14 particular site codes from my report. So I just want this to be clear.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Janc.
16 Mr. Karadzic will come back to you with that, if he so wishes.
17 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. And just to be fair, you had some time to look at the site codes,
19 right, and you had a full listing. You could clearly connect the site
20 codes right?
21 A. Yes, correct. It is not easy for someone to understand all these
22 codes. Even for me sometimes it is difficult and I have to refer to many
23 sources in order to find a particular site code and so to connect it to
24 somewhere, so it is not easy. You have to do it systematically,
25 methodologically, and that is what I have been doing over these years,
1 getting information about all the site codes and then -- only then I was
2 able to link those site codes to particular mass graves, surface remains,
3 whatever it was.
4 Q. So now we're going to look at one more example.
5 MS. WEST: Your Honour, I suspect I can finish before lunch.
6 JUDGE KWON: But you said you would come back with --
7 MS. WEST: And I will come back with that after lunch. Otherwise
8 I'll finish.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 MS. WEST: We're going to look at the second page of this and it
11 is not to be broadcast. In specific, I would like to focus in on the
12 name under number 183.
13 Q. This is a name referred to here that you did some further
14 investigation on; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, correct.
16 Q. All right. And I asked you to look for someone with that name
17 who was about 28 or 29 years old. And I'm looking at the male name under
18 183. What did you find?
19 A. I found on the ICMP list two names with similar or same first and
20 last name and even the father's name, so both of them appeared there.
21 But one was born in 1954, the date of birth was listed as that one. And
22 for another person, it was listed in 1966. And based on that, I was able
23 to conclude that this is the person in question, because being in the
24 time, 28 years old, that would be exactly the person.
25 Q. All right. And where did you find the remains of that person?
1 A. The remains of that person are found in Cancari 4 grave,
2 secondary grave-site.
3 Q. And tell us what execution site Cancari 4 is connected to?
4 A. Cancari 4 secondary site is connected to Branjevo execution site,
6 Q. Thank you. If we can go back to your report, 23584, and look at
7 page 2, please.
8 And if we can look at the title. I noticed here the title
10 "Exhumation of the graves and surface remains recoveries related
11 to Srebrenica and Zepa, April 2010."
12 Can you tell us, is that title correct?
13 A. No, the word "and Zepa" should be omitted from this report --
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. -- because the template for my -- for this report was obviously
16 my previous report where I did include the Zepa part of the case as well.
17 Q. And your Karadzic report has no information in it regarding Zepa;
19 A. No.
20 Q. All right.
21 MS. WEST: Your Honour, I would move to admit the report. There
22 was both a public redacted version and the other version. And, as I said
23 earlier, in regard to the charts, we will provide redacted versions for
24 the Court.
25 JUDGE KWON: Any objections?
1 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll admit both versions.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 23584 will be Exhibit P4771,
4 under seal.
5 And 65 ter 23584A will be Exhibit P4772.
6 JUDGE KWON: Shall we take the break now? And you will deal with
7 the -- the typos or the updated final versions. Yes.
8 We'll take a break now for an hour and resume at 1.30.
9 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 1.31 p.m.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. West.
12 MS. WEST: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Mr. Janc, in the last session, we were speaking about unmatched
14 unique DNA profiles. And you had indicated that you had counted up
15 260 and that's what you listed in your report. But when we actually
16 looked at 65 ter 23677, Judge Kwon rightly pointed out that it didn't
17 count up to 260. And you noted in your footnote 1 that you had
18 recognised this problem, identified this problem, and had made some
19 inquiries to ICMP.
20 MS. WEST: May I have P04656, please.
21 Q. In that footnote, you had noted there was earlier reports, one
22 was March 2009 and one was December 2010. What we have before us now is
23 P04656. This is the March 2010 listing. And you have a hard copy in
24 front of you as well.
25 What can you tell us about this list?
1 A. The problem is I don't see anything on the screen, and I have --
2 MS. WEST: May we go to Sanction, please. Thank you.
3 Q. Okay. Now, this does this help you clarify the issue?
4 A. Yes. I believe these are the cases, the unique unmatched
5 profiles provided to us in 2010 by the ICMP.
6 Q. Okay. And I know it's hard to discern because this is just
7 numbers, but you put a footnote in your report regarding this; correct?
8 A. Yes, correct.
9 Q. And in regard to the March 2009 report, information that the ICMP
10 had provided, I'll tell you this: We matched it up to what is in front
11 of you. But does that seem to be correct to you?
12 A. Yes, correct. Yes.
13 Q. All right. Now, in addition to this, you also footnoted a
14 December 2010 report. And that's 65 ter 23683. And that's going appear
15 before you in a moment.
16 MS. WEST: Oh, also Sanction, please. Thank you.
17 Q. Okay. And does this seem familiar to you?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. Now, in regard to these two documents, plus the one
20 we had shown you earlier, 65 ter 23677 - and we don't need that right
21 now - can you tell us how it is that you came to the number 260 for
22 unmatched DNA profiles?
23 A. I first counted and took into consideration all which were
24 provided to us in December 2011. On top of it, I included the missing
25 ones which were on the list provided to the OTP in February 2010. And
1 also there were some cases missing from the list which was provided to
2 the OTP in March 2009, so I added them as well.
3 Q. Okay. And just tell us a little bit more about how you added
4 that up number and the clarification that you received from ICMP.
5 A. Yes. I inquired with the ICMP regarding the specific issues in
6 December last year. I sent them an e-mail asking what is their opinion
7 in relation to those missing unique DNA profiles and the response was
8 that the reason would be the same as they already provided to us in
9 2010 --
10 Q. And what was -- sorry.
11 A. -- where they explained that there are certain cases somewhere,
12 in some space, and they don't appear on any of such lists because they
13 are taken off and they are in process of being identified.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. Or matched to a missing person.
16 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Ms. West, while the transcript is
17 there, lines 17, 18 of previous page. Do you see that?
18 "Now, in addition to this, you also footnoted a December 2010
20 Should it not read "February 2010 report"?
21 MS. WEST: Yes, that is my mistake, Your Honour. In the footnote
22 it is February 2010.
23 Q. And maybe we can clarify this. If you can have your report in
24 front of you, sir. We're looking at footnote number 1. The two reports
25 that were provided to you on this particular issue of unmatched DNA
1 profiles, were those from March 2009 and February 2010?
2 A. Yes, correct. And just to be clear, these are actually the list
3 which relates to the unique profiles, not the -- the data, the
4 comprehensive data which is provided to us with the names. So I'm
5 referring here to this separate list which are provided to the OTP upon
6 our request. So -- and we have three of such lists right now. One was
7 provided to the OTP in March 2009, the other one in February 2010, and
8 the last one December 2010.
9 So I cross-referenced all those three and came up with the number
10 of 260 unique profiles, which I included in my report.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MS. WEST: And, for the record, Your Honour, the March 2009
13 report has already been admitted and that's P04656. The --
14 JUDGE KWON: Then shall we admit two --
15 MS. WEST: Yes.
16 JUDGE KWON: -- reports from 2010. One in February, one in
18 MS. WEST: And those numbers, the February is 2 -- sorry. 23677.
19 JUDGE KWON: The other way around.
20 MS. WEST: I'm sorry, 23683. And then the other is 23677. So
21 it's a total of three reports on this particular issue.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Those two versions of 2010 will be admitted.
23 MS. WEST: Thank you.
24 JUDGE KWON: Under seal. Under seal? We need to admit it under
25 seal. Those we saw in Sanction.
1 MS. WEST: I don't -- Your Honour, I will get back to you on this
2 issue, but my initial response is no because I'm not sure that these
3 are -- can be related to anybody. But -- but out of caution let's admit
4 them under seal right now and I'll come back to you this afternoon.
5 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Yes, let's do that.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, 65 ter number 23677 will be
7 Exhibit P4773.
8 And 65 ter 23683 will be Exhibit p4774, both provisionally under
10 MS. WEST:
11 Q. So, sir, there is one more subject matter that I want to ask
12 about, and this regards the Bisina grave-site. This is a grave-site with
13 which you are familiar; right?
14 A. Yes, correct.
15 Q. Are you also familiar with the name Himzo Mujic?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. And how did you become familiar with that name?
18 MS. WEST: And may we go into private session, please.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 [Private session]
11 Page 26996 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
3 MS. WEST: Thank you.
4 May we have 65 ter 31461A. And just the English version because
5 I think we can just broadcast the English version. This is July 24th,
6 1995, 11.32. At 11.00 -- 11.32 in the morning.
7 Q. Now in this we have X, who says:
8 "He was here at our place. I don't know if he is still here,
9 Himzo Mujic."
10 Is this the name that we were just talking about?
11 A. Yes, correct.
12 Q. "Y: That's what I'm calling you for.
14 "Is it possible to find out where he is, what he is doing?"
15 If we go down a little bit further, under Y, it says:
16 "He worked for him and then the war started."
17 Then for X:
18 "So that's why he hopes he might be exchanged ..."
19 Do you know what the backstory is here in regards to the
20 suggestion that this person worked for him?
21 A. Yes, we located the person which is mentioned here, Jovicic, and
22 we interviewed him, and he was actually the local police officer in
23 Han Pijesak. And we understood this communication or sentence as
24 Himzo Mujic being the one who co-operated with that police officer at the
1 Q. And then it says:
2 "Y: And where is he?
3 "X: I could try to call the warden, you know."
4 MS. WEST: If we can go to page 2 of this and it can be
6 Q. And at the top it says:
7 "He's wounded," he said, "and he needs a little treatment. He's
8 wounded in the leg."
9 What information did you find out that corroborated this?
10 A. This is in the intercept I was referring to when I found
11 statement or conversation about this wound in the leg. So -- and then I
12 corroborated this with autopsy records and especially, I think,
13 exhumation record would reflect that.
14 MS. WEST: May we mark that for identification, please,
15 Your Honour.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: MFI P4775, Your Honours.
18 MS. WEST:
19 Q. I want to show you another one. 31462B.
20 MS. WEST: This is also can be broadcast. We're only looking at
21 the first page. This is the same day, July 24, at 12.50.
22 If we can just have a moment, I think we can find the English.
23 Here we go. Great. Thank you.
24 Q. And in this conversation, again, we have an X and a Y, but I want
25 to go towards the bottom where it begins, under X:
1 "And another thing, since I have difficulty in getting in touch
2 with Kan [phoen] up there, you will tell him this. Himzo Mujic.
4 "Himzo is no longer in prison here. Have him call
5 Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic.
7 "Popovic. Call the Drina Corps base and ask for extension 91.
8 "Drina Corps base, extension 91.
9 "That's right.
10 "And he should arrange things with him personally. He is the
11 only one who knows where he went from here and what happened to him."
12 So, Mr. Janc, is this -- this conversation that we just -- I just
13 read out, does this regard again the same Himzo Mujic that you were
14 talking about?
15 A. Yes. I'm sure it -- it refers to the same person because this is
16 a subsequent or the follow-up conversation on the same day, on 24 of
17 July, 1995. It's just, I think, one hour of difference.
18 MS. WEST: Your Honour, may we mark that for identification as
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
21 THE REGISTRAR: MFI P4776, Your Honours.
22 MS. WEST: Mr. President, I have no further questions at this
23 point. There was one issue that was outstanding. It regarded the 35 and
24 the 44, 45. If I understood clearly, you indicated that the witness
25 could speak about that tomorrow? Were you giving him some time or --
1 JUDGE KWON: If we continue tomorrow I'm fine with him coming
2 back with that issue tomorrow morning.
3 MS. WEST: So maybe tomorrow if I can just have a few minutes, we
4 will ask some more questions about that.
5 JUDGE KWON: You also alluded to the corrections, other
6 corrections of this -- you tendered 23584 but we were informed of the
7 existence of two other versions. 23656, 23593.
8 MS. WEST: So I think the clearest way to do this would be to
9 tender 23584 and the correction I made earlier in regarding to the title,
10 "and Zepa." And then there's a correction of the word "surface," it's
11 just misspelled on page 1 and page 2. I think -- I'm sorry, I think this
12 is becoming a bit confusing, and I will consult with Mr. Reid to make
13 sure that we've got it clear.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
15 MS. WEST: Thank you. And when I -- can I have a moment, please.
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MS. WEST: And thank you to Mr. Registrar who brought to my
18 attention 65 ter 23681, which is the sample page. This thing that we've
19 been using all along. I will defer to the Chamber as to whether you
20 would like this to be admitted or not. I was using it more as an aid,
21 but if the Court would like it to be --
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, in order to follow the transcript we need to
23 admit it.
24 MS. WEST: Thank you.
25 JUDGE KWON: We would admit it under seal. Have we given the
1 number yet? Yes, we'll do that now.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P4777, under seal,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, are you ready to start your
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Good day, Your Excellencies.
7 Good day to everyone.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Janc.
10 A. Good afternoon.
11 Q. I'd like to thank you for having met the Defence team yesterday,
12 and I hope this will be of assistance to us. I hope it will help me
13 complete my cross-examination in time and in a smooth manner.
14 I'd like to ask you the following. Have I understood this
15 correctly, you went to police academy and completed a course at the
16 police academy; isn't that correct?
17 A. Yes, it was a secondary police school. After that, I also
18 completed college for police and security studies. After that,
19 post-graduation degree I obtained at the faculty of criminal justice in
21 Q. Thank you. For how long did you work for the police? What sort
22 of duties did you perform in the police force prior to becoming an
24 A. I was a, let's say, regular police officer for a year, between
25 July 1993 to September 1994. At that time I became criminal investigator
1 at the police station, so at the lower level. So I was dealing basically
2 with minor criminal offences, like burglaries, thefts, frauds, but also
3 going to the crime scenes of serious crimes, make sure that they are
4 secured, protected, and this kind of criminal activities or
5 investigations. Later on I moved to the organised crime department
6 within the police directorate Kranj where I have been dealing mostly with
7 serious crimes related to organised crime. That was in 2000, where I
8 stayed until 2003, when I was sent for one year to Bosnia-Herzegovina
9 being an advisor to Criminal Investigation Department of Republika Srpska
10 police forces. And then I returned back to my forces in Slovenia in
11 2004, in June, where I joined the same unit, organised crime department
12 unit. In 2006, I became an investigator at this Tribunal. And since
13 August last year I'm investigator still with the Office of Internal
14 Oversight Services.
15 So, let's say, for the last 18 years I have been involved in
16 criminal investigations, investigating all sorts of crimes, being minor
17 or really serious and big crimes.
18 Q. Thank you. What would your profession be called in our former
19 system and in our language? Would the title used be inspector? Would
20 that be the name one would give to your profession?
21 A. Yes. You know, it's always up to the system and to the
22 organisation. At one point I was -- my title, official title, was
23 criminal investigator inspector or inspector for criminal investigations
24 or something. It is difficult to translate. But, yeah, they used to
25 call us inspectors. But later on we became investigators. So it changed
1 a lot, you know.
2 Q. Thank you very much for that explanation.
3 Could you please explain how and in what order the events
4 unfolded. In fact, am I correct when I say the following: You would
5 receive a criminal report from the regular police force; isn't that
6 correct? And then you would inform the prosecutor of the case or you
7 would launch an investigation yourself before the prosecutor's office
8 initiated such an investigation?
9 How did these things work, in fact, in our former system, or,
10 rather, in your former system?
11 A. So I would be focussing on the system I went through, how it was,
12 and I think it is still organised in the same way. It is whenever you
13 get information or a report about the crime being committed, so -- and
14 this might be various sources. It's not only from police officers. You
15 might come across any such reports or incidents by yourself. So in any
16 such instances you would inform the prosecutor about the crime or
17 possible crime committed and then we would start our investigation
18 independently of the prosecutor, informing the prosecutor what we are
19 doing. So investigation, it's up to the police forces in my country.
20 Now, more these days it's more in corroboration with the prosecutor, but
21 when I was there, it was more up to the police -- police forces
22 investigator to run the investigation.
23 If you want certain measures or -- to be implemented during your
24 investigation, of course, you need to get the permission, for example,
25 from -- from the prosecutor or even we approached the judge, for example,
1 if we wanted to search a house. In that case, the judge would give us an
2 order to search a house or person or this kind of stuff. Or, for
3 example, if you attend the crime scene, so you have to inform judge and
4 the prosecutor. And then they decide if they attend or not. If they say
5 no, then it's up to the investigator to do this crime scene investigation
7 And then when investigation is done, when everything is
8 completed, I would submit my report, my findings, or I would actually
9 submit my, let's say, criminal charge to the prosecutor. Then it's the
10 prosecutor again do decide if -- if there enough evidence to bring this
11 case in front of the court.
12 So that's basically the system in my country.
13 Q. Thank you. What was the role of the investigative judge?
14 A. As I already mentioned, certain activities should be -- should be
15 ordered by the judge. So we would request these -- or we would submit
16 such requests to the investigative judge. So he is the one, let's say,
17 in the middle. When you are conducting investigation, you would always
18 approach the investigative judge in order to get the search warrant from
19 him. And whenever you would, for example, arrest the suspect, you would
20 bring such suspect along with your report to the investigative judge, and
21 he examined -- examines him first. And then it's up to the prosecutor to
22 decide if they will start the investigation but the judicial
23 investigation. And if this is then started, the investigative judge will
24 run this -- will run this investigation, judicial investigation.
25 Only after that, when this is completed, judicial part of the
1 investigation, everything is brought in front of the court, in front of
2 the judges, when the trial starts, so when the investigation is done by
3 an investigative judge.
4 Q. Thank you. Would I be right in saying that the investigating
5 judge returns all the investigating material to the prosecutor and only
6 then the decision is made whether to indict or not?
7 A. Yes, correct. Before that, and that's what -- why I emphasise
8 that we would submit criminal charge in Slovenia to the prosecutor. This
9 is not indictment yet. Of course, then it's up to the prosecutor to
10 decide about investigation. And when he gets all the information or the
11 results of the investigation done in front of investigative judge back,
12 then it's up to him to decide regarding the indictment.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Now move onto another topic, Mr. Karadzic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. So you got involved in this case after the indictment was brought
17 against me; right?
18 A. Yeah. If you're referring to your first indictment against you,
19 then yes. But then was amended one later.
20 Q. Well, the second, too, maybe even the third. In any case, at
21 least two indictments were issued against me before your investigation.
22 A. Let's put it this way. When you were arrested, I know that
23 amended indictment was issued against you. At that time, I was working
24 for -- for the OTP, yes.
25 Q. Thank you. Would I be right in saying that what you were
1 doing -- in fact, the initial material was expert material from
2 pathologists, exhumation experts, et cetera, processed by Mr. Manning,
3 and that material you then took over to continue updating; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So neither by training, nor occupation, nor by assignment did you
6 review the expert material. You just took it for granted as a done deed.
7 Matter closed.
8 A. It's not as simple as that. I reviewed that material and also
9 the subsequent material which -- which was submitted to the OTP in
10 subsequent years. And I reviewed that material as well, and, of course,
11 used the findings of these experts to make the conclusions in my report.
12 Q. Thank you. Out of all this initial expert material, what did you
13 critically review and analyse? Which part of it were you able to accept
14 as it was, and for what part did you require clarification?
15 A. I don't remember requiring any clarification for any of those
16 reports. And I examined, I would say, most of the reports related to
17 primary and secondary mass graves.
18 Q. Would I then be right in saying that the main material you
19 reviewed came from Mr. Baraybar, Mr. Lawrence, and who else?
20 A. When I was referring to these reports, I referred to all those
21 experts which were, in a way, present during this exhumation process or
22 later on, autopsy process. So there were many experts, like
23 Bill Haglund, and you mentioned two. Then Richard Wright was present at
24 some of those exhumations. So many of those experts, yeah.
25 Q. So you didn't find there anything disputable or ambiguous that
1 would require clarification; is that correct?
2 A. Nothing that would impact my conclusions in my report, in
3 relation to these numbers.
4 Q. And concerning numbers, was it your main task to establish the
5 numbers or to update everything else that was done? Could you tell us
6 specifically what was your assignment? To update what in Manning's work?
7 A. I think I explained this morning what the objectives of my report
8 were. There were four. They were not only to update numbers or to talk
9 only about the numbers. That was only one objective, to update the
11 The second one was to update the new located mass graves or
12 graves or other locations which were related to Srebrenica events.
13 Then the third one was to present the facts on surface remains.
14 And the fourth one - and this is exclusively my one - was to
15 analyse data to get DNA connections out of those data. And it was very
16 important because those data, the DNA connections, actually corroborates
17 what other experts have found before. So which mass graves are connected
18 to the secondary grave-sites and -- et cetera.
19 So it was additional corroboration of what they have been doing
21 Q. Ah-ha. Now I understand. So you did not analyse that for
22 accuracy. You were looking instead for elements to corroborate the
24 A. No, both. I was critical to data which were already in our
25 previous reports or in my -- my previous report. And I was critical to
1 my own report when I excluded some of the -- the individuals which would
2 appear, for example, in my Popovic report or even one site which is
3 Srebrenica hospital. It's not here anymore.
4 So I am always critical, and I am trying to find the facts. But
5 you will always doing that because it's so many different locations and
6 so many individuals on this list that certain mistakes may occur.
7 Q. Thank you. So some of the mistakes and omissions made by these
8 experts, you were able to critically analyse, reconsider, and change the
9 findings accordingly.
10 A. Yes. But these changes are really slight changes. It doesn't
11 change anything significant in this case.
12 Q. Are you aware that in San Antonio, the work of institutions in
13 charge of exhumations in Bosnia was reviewed critically and criticised,
14 especially the work of Haglund/Kirschner?
15 Are you aware of this?
16 A. I did hear about him being criticised - I'm referring to
17 Dr. Haglund - but I'm not aware in detail about this criticism.
18 Q. All right. In view of the fact that you, too, critically
19 reviewed the material that you were supposed to update -- or, rather, to
20 update the analyses of that initial work, don't you think it would have
21 been useful to see what the San Antonio people found wrong with the work
22 of Haglund/Kirschner and then decide what you think about it?
23 A. Not necessarily. And I think that this question is more for --
24 for Dr. Haglund, and I think he testified already in this case, and I'm
25 sure you asked him this question as well. Because when -- what I was
1 doing is putting all the evidence, all the documents on the records, and
2 all the statements and whatever I was able to find to particular
3 grave-site or grave, in order to put the puzzles together. So -- because
4 if you are looking partially just into one report or into specific area
5 of investigation, you would not get a clear picture.
6 Q. Thank you. However, although you collected all these elements,
7 these elements are based on actions that the scientific group in
8 San Antonio found a lot to criticise about.
9 Why didn't you find out more about that criticism to see whether
10 the material you received from these experts is reliable enough? Did you
11 never wonder whether everything was impeccably done, indeed, before you
12 got involved?
13 A. I simply don't have answer to this question, why I haven't
14 consulted or tried to find this criticism. Perhaps I didn't think
15 important because I did have other information, other evidence about
16 certain crimes committed and perhaps I didn't feel much important or
17 important enough to consult. But if you have this, we can discuss these
18 documents, you can discuss. Because it's better always to be more
19 specific because now we are talking about some general issues on what
20 I've done, what I haven't done.
21 Q. Fine. If we have time left tomorrow, we'll see what we can do
22 about this.
23 But this leads me to the area of your relationship with the OTP.
24 What relationship did you have with the OTP?
25 A. I was investigator for the OTP.
1 Q. Thank you. Were you subject to the Official Secrets Act? Were
2 you able to have difference of opinions with the Prosecution, to confront
3 them, to oppose them?
4 A. We are all, you know, subject to -- not to reveal any secrets,
5 secret acts or anything, all working for the United Nations. We are all
6 under this obligation.
7 But for the second part of your question, if I was -- if I could
8 have a different opinion with the Prosecution, yes, of course. I was not
9 limited to -- to anything.
10 Q. Thank you. But your main task was to provide support for the
11 indictment; correct?
12 A. Yeah. In a way, yes. My task was to update the report, to
13 present the new numbers, mass graves, graves, and other figures about the
14 victims of the Srebrenica event.
15 Q. Thank you. On several occasions today you mentioned that you
16 were forced to deal with certain inclarities and confusions and for each
17 of them, it seems, you found a rational explanation. That was page 70
18 where you spoke, in particular, about confusions in the Parsons's
19 testimony on mass graves, and several other times you said there were
20 inclarities but you have dealt with them. Did you deal with them as the
21 Prosecution would have wished or as your professional standards dictate?
22 A. Certainly as my professional standards dictate -- dictate me.
23 There was no influence by the Prosecution, what I was given by the
24 Prosecution, if you are talking now about this particular case. I was
25 given the testimony of -- that part of the testimony of Dr. Parsons and
1 asked to review his testimony and to see what I can find out. And I did
2 find out certain discrepancies between his testimony and what are the
3 facts what I found out during my investigation, and I revealed those
4 to -- today. But there was no instruction by the Prosecution.
5 Q. Thank you. On page 64 of today's transcript, you said something
6 went wrong with the identification. That's also one of the confusions.
7 Did you solve any of these confusions in favour of the Defence?
8 Or, rather, in a way that could be useful to the Defence?
9 A. You know, whenever there was a confusion or if I was not certain
10 about the facts or certain about what I could see in the ICMP data, if
11 there were discrepancies, I would always consult them myself or through
12 my colleagues, in order to get clarification. This is -- one of such
13 examples were the unique DNA profiles. Then I also consulted them in
14 2010 regarding the illogical DNA connections. I think we sent
15 information to them about the errors we thought at the time would be --
16 would be in their data, so -- but it's up to them, again, to establish
17 that and to correct them if there are errors. Also, as you can see, that
18 now we have several -- we have four tabs in their data, and one tab is
19 exclusively related to the excluded individuals as being related to the
20 Srebrenica event. So they did take certain steps towards the
21 verification of their data. And I would say that was prompted also by
22 our requests in order to take a look into those data or some portions of
23 those data more carefully.
24 Q. Thank you. And what was the final outcome of that intervention
25 of yours? Did they realise their mistake and correct it?
1 A. Yes. If they realised the mistake, they corrected the mistake or
2 they provided us a reasonable explanation why this should appear there in
3 certain way. So -- but most of them they corrected. But I have to
4 emphasise these are really -- because it's a huge amount of data in their
5 spreadsheet, we are here talking really about a small number of cases.
6 Q. Yes, thank you. Yesterday during our interview, you confirmed
7 that you didn't know whether the ICMP had checked their findings against
8 those of some other institutions or whether anyone else checked their
9 findings independently in their laboratories.
10 You said that some errors were found on their lists but the
11 number of those errors was low. Would you then agree that the importance
12 of those errors should have been left to the Trial Chamber to decide;
13 whereas you should have only analysed them statistically, to establish
14 their statistical import?
15 A. It is always, at the end of the day, the Trial Chamber's decision
16 and -- about what certain evidence might -- might tell or what weight to
17 certain evidence might be given. It's up to them. But it's up to me, of
18 course, to present the facts. And I don't deny that I did find certain
19 discrepancies in the ICMP data. I alerted about them. I sent additional
20 clarifications to -- to the ICMP. They corrected them. But, again, I'm
21 emphasising this is really small number of data.
22 Q. And what would have happened, Mr. Janc, if you had not been so
23 diligent and so perspicacious to find this? Would those errors remain
25 A. This would be now really speculation because someone else might
1 be dealing in a same manner as I was dealing. Maybe ICMP would identify
2 those mistakes by themselves. I don't know what would happen. I don't
3 have answer to this.
4 Q. And what would have happened if you had been even more diligent
5 and even more insightful and found out even more errors? In other words,
6 could it be that there are more errors undetected?
7 MS. WEST: Objection. I think the witness called it himself,
8 this just all requires speculation.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. What about the Defence teams of the people who have been already
13 convicted on the basis of previous findings? Did you inform them of the
14 latest you have established about all these errors?
15 A. I'm sure they are aware of those because I understand all of my
16 reports are disclosed to any Defence team who might be interested in --
17 in it, or -- regardless of being already convicted or not. And if you
18 follow these reports, you will see the differences which are, again, of
19 course, small corrections, but, still, they are there.
20 Q. You were able to observe certain errors in the work of the ICMP,
21 especially their lists. Does that mean that certain matters that could
22 be ambiguous or undetermined in initial materials, such as the reports of
23 Mr. Lawrence, Haglund, Baraybar, and Dean Manning, if there are any
24 ambiguities there, or perhaps even errors, would they be perpetuated in
25 Manning's reports and yours? Did you subject this initial material to
1 additional analysis and verification?
2 A. I just say again that the majority of the ICMP data are valid,
3 reliable and are not impacted by these errors. You are really talking
4 about a small number of cases which might be ambiguous. Let's put it
5 that way.
6 Q. All right. My position is -- or, rather, the position of the
7 Defence is that this significance can only be established by way of
8 statistics, not just off the cuff; right? And you did not undertake the
9 necessary statistical procedure.
10 A. I would say one of the ways is through statistics, but not the
11 only one.
12 Q. Thank you. Do you claim that, on the basis of their findings,
13 their initial findings that were analysed by Mr. Manning and then you
14 inherited all of that and ultimately updated it, are you saying that you
15 could have known when people fell victim, and can you link that to the
16 period after Srebrenica?
17 A. Yes. They're linked to the period after Srebrenica. There are
18 many evidence about it.
19 Q. Well, I am asking you about the expert work of these people,
20 these five people. What was it in their expertise that convinced you
21 that these persons perished in the second week of July 1995? Are these
22 autopsy results? What was it that could have confirmed that for you in
23 order to be able to firmly assert that these victims were from the second
24 week of July 1995?
25 A. You know, we cannot partialise their work, let's put it this way.
1 You have to have a complete picture. What I am getting from their
2 reports, for example, pathologists, perhaps I'm not getting the date when
3 certain individual was killed, executed or died, whatever. What I am
4 getting is the manner of death and how it was found, where it was found,
5 what kind of artefacts, evidence, or whatever, was found in the place
6 where he was buried. So this is important what I am looking at. So in
7 order to ascertain or, you know, to establish the dates, there are
8 different means to doing that, and one of those - in this case it is very
9 important - are the aerial images where you can see when those graves
10 were opened, reopened and closed. Then, of course, we have so many
11 evidence, documentary evidence, being statements, testimonies of those
12 survived, of those witnesses of these killings or even participated in
13 them. Then we have documents from the various sources, one of them being
14 VRS, about the -- how they move the equipment around these places.
15 So have you to take into consideration all of them, in order to
16 get into a conclusion when certain individual might die. Those won't --
17 you, as an investigator, I know that you will never find or you will very
18 rarely find information in -- in -- in such reports from these experts
19 about the exact date or even time of death. Yes, if the body is fresh,
20 then, yes. But if it is -- if some time elapsed, you won't find these
21 conclusions there. But all sorts -- all other conclusions will be there
22 which are important for investigation to ascertain or to find out what
24 Q. Thank you. You said today on page 6, line 16, that even from
25 witnesses who took part in the killings, you obtained information. Did
1 these witnesses disclose the names of their victims to you; and did you
2 establish the time of death for these victims on the basis of that?
3 A. There were several executors interviewed by the ICTY. Some of
4 them, I think, testified also in this courtroom. Perhaps you are not
5 provided with the names by those executors, but I think they described in
6 detail who the people being killed by them were.
7 We did get lots of names, on the other side, from the survivors,
8 from the people being connected to those killed, walking through the
9 woods. We have many, many of those statements.
10 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you confirmed that you proceed from an
11 assumption that needs to be confirmed; namely, that all bodies found in
12 mass graves belong to persons who were executed in the second week of
13 July; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. We'll go back to that.
16 However, thanks to you, one of the corrections of ICMP findings
17 was the fact that you established that in one mass grave, the mortal
18 remains of some persons who lost their lives in 1993 were found; right?
19 A. I think you are now talking about Bljeceva 1, secondary grave,
20 which is indeed a mixed grave. Being mixed, I mean inside, the
21 individuals or victims of incident -- incident which happened in
22 Bratunac, I think, in 1992, not 1993, were disposed also. In addition,
23 some human remains from the victims of the Srebrenica events -- event
24 were disposed into the same mass grave.
25 Q. So at different points in time.
1 Is it your position that that is the only grave in which people
2 were buried at different points in time?
3 A. You know, I don't claim here that people were buried in that
4 location at different points in time. What I say, that they are coming
5 from different events, the bodies which are disposed into this particular
6 mass grave are coming from two different events. I would say - it's my
7 opinion - they're coming at the same time but from two different
8 locations. So both were buried somewhere else before, and they were
9 reburied and disposed into this mass grave.
10 And to answer your question, yes, I think this is the only mixed
11 grave, mass grave, which I came across during this investigation.
12 Q. Thank you. How did you rule out the possibility of bodies or
13 victims from 1992 being buried that point in time, and then the grave was
14 opened again and victims from 1995 were added? How did you rule that
16 A. Reviewing the exhumation records on that exhumation would tell us
17 a lot. And I'm particularly referring to the ICMP summary report on that
19 Such discrepancies or such indications would be spotted during
20 the exhumation itself. I think we have seven deposits inside that grave,
21 and when they opened the grave, they spotted a difference between certain
22 deposits. And, subsequently, I'm sure they would find out that -- or
23 they would be spotted during their exhumation because I know that
24 archeologists are also present during the exhumation and they would be
25 able to say, yes, we have two sets of bodies inside this grave, actually
1 bodies from different locations, and they were disposed into that grave
2 in -- on two different occasions.
3 Q. Thank you. However, they did not conclude that. You somehow
4 came by that information; right?
5 A. Yes, you're right. They haven't explicitly put down this
6 conclusion in writing into their report. That's correct.
7 Q. Thank you. Did you discover what the reason might have been for
8 the reburial of victims from 1992, relocation into a new grave?
9 A. You know, it would be again speculation, whatever I say. But
10 most probably the reason was the same as it was for the reburials which
11 occurred in -- occurred in relation to Srebrenica event: To hide some
12 crimes committed from someone.
13 Q. Oh. Don't you think that 1992 was far away and that there was no
14 reason for them to be brought out into broad daylight and reburied
15 somewhere else?
16 A. Nothing is too far away for the war crimes. And at that time I
17 think there was already an investigation. It was well-known there would
18 be or the investigation is ongoing against the high-level officials in
19 Bratunac. And perhaps that was the reason. I'm now specific referring
20 to Mr. Deronjic, Miroslav.
21 Q. Thank you. So do I understand this correctly: Are you saying
22 that the persons who were carrying out the exhumations, as well as the
23 pathologists, could ascertain different times of death or different times
24 of burial, in accordance with the corpses themselves, the existence of
25 groups, and so on?
1 What was it that they actually concluded?
2 A. I think we discussed the issue about the time of death. That one
3 is difficult to establish just reviewing the -- the autopsy or -- for the
5 In relation to how the grave is created, I'm sure the
6 archaeologists at the site would be able to ascertain. And they were,
7 for example, able to ascertain how many deposits is there which simply
8 means how many trucks came and dump bodies into the grave. And they
9 ascertained also that soil found inside the grave is connected to the one
10 from the primary site, and they concluded, based on that -- or it can be
11 concluded based on that that there is only -- there are only bodies from
12 one location deposited there at one point in time, also in connection
13 with other evidence, other evidence we have available.
14 Q. Thank you. So what was the conclusion? From where were these
15 bodies brought in, those that belonged to victims of 1992?
16 A. Now we are focussing on 1992. I have to admit, I haven't
17 investigated that part of the incident. So I have no knowledge about
18 where they are coming from. I do know there was some killing in 1992 in
19 Bratunac, but not more than that.
20 Q. Thank you. So would you agree with Dr. Lawrence in the
21 following: That the time of death or the time of burial, and very often
22 not even the cause of death, cannot be established in many cases when
23 bodies are so highly decomposed?
24 I can even give you the page references for when he testified
1 MS. WEST: Please.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is it. The time of death and
3 the time of burial cannot be established in that way. This is what he
4 said on page 22483, lines 9 through 11. And the time of death cannot be
5 established. He said that a pathologist could not do that. And he said
6 that on page 22484, line 7 to 3.
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. So on the basis of what did you establish that these were victims
9 from July 1995?
10 A. First, yes, I agree with Dr. Lawrence. If you are reviewing or
11 examining these records partially without having a picture about
12 everything what happened and about the other evidence, that might be
13 conclusion, yes. We cannot say when they were executed, when they were
14 put in these graves. In that sense, I can agree with him.
15 But you -- just let me confirm ...
16 Ah-ha. You know, it's -- people which are in these graves appear
17 on the ICRC missing list, so it means they went missing after the fall of
18 Srebrenica. This is our basic source for information about the people
19 found in these graves. In corroboration with other evidence, you will
20 find even more information about these people. For example, when they
21 went missing, when they were last seen by someone. You would have so
22 many witnesses and victims of this crime -- crimes, giving us statements
23 or testifying in court and naming those people who appeared in these
24 graves. We do have aerial images. We have document evidence as to when
25 they were excavated or when the machinery was employed into these
2 So when you put all this together, yes, we can conclude when they
3 were actually executed, and when they were buried, and when they were
5 Q. How are you going to conclude that they were executed? On the
6 basis of what?
7 A. Okay. For that, we'll have to take a look into evidence, into
8 what was found during exhumation. For example, that's where I would be
9 looking first. And in many of those graves, there were many, many of
10 shell casings around the area where they were buried as well. Then you
11 have bullets inside the graves. You have then testimonies of people
12 saying they were killed. Then have you in many of those graves, people
13 were blindfolded and ligatured. Then you have evidence statement or a
14 conclusion of the pathologist, I think, also that they were executed or
15 that they were even alive buried and this kind -- these sorts of things.
16 So these are all the evidence and all the main points I would be looking
17 at when concluding when -- and actually what happened to these people.
18 Q. Thank you. Do you know, or did you establish the number of
19 victims who had ligatures on both hands? Real ligatures. Not bands or
20 something like that, but real ligatures.
21 A. I do have a number of how many ligatures and blindfolds were
22 found in these graves, the total number. If you allow, I can consult my
23 spreadsheet and I will give you the numbers. Again, approximate numbers,
24 because for some of them we can really -- we were unable to say, Okay, is
25 this ligature or not. But I can give you, for example, the list or the
1 numbers, how many of those were found in graves, if you are interested.
2 Q. Thank you. Please, this is the not the first time you appear
3 before the court; right? So do tell us what the number of indubitable
4 ligatures is, beyond any doubt whatsoever?
5 A. Okay. In order to do -- to give you the --
6 Q. Tomorrow will be fine. Tomorrow will do. You will have a free
7 evening, and you can take a look at all of that. We are here to
8 establish what the truth is, not to claim victory.
9 On the basis of the findings of pathologists, did you manage to
10 conclude that someone had been executed; and, if so, what from distance,
11 what kinds of ammunition was used? Do you have hard evidence? Was any
12 of that established beyond any doubt? And on the basis of whose findings
13 did you establish that?
14 A. I think there are many autopsy reports saying that -- that there
15 are so many wounds, injuries, inside certain bodies, or the pathologist
16 was certain that these people should be executed.
17 In relation to the distance, I don't think I have ever seen any
18 such conclusion or any such evidence on it, but there might be.
19 In relation to what kind of ammunition was used, I think it's
20 been established, because there are so many bullets found, shell casings
21 found, and mainly it was -- it was the ammunition used at the time by the
22 VRS army.
23 And just to comment in relation to the ligatures, I'm not sure I
24 would be able to do this analysis tonight. I have the numbers here. The
25 problem is that these numbers won't be what you would like to have from
1 me. In order to do that, I would need more time and access to the actual
2 database which I don't have here, but I can provide you with -- with --
3 with the data, how many of those ligatures were found straight away. For
4 example, for Branjevo and related Cancari graves, we have 274 -- sorry,
5 276. For Kozluk site and related Cancari graves, we have 313 ligatures.
6 Then we go down.
7 For Petkovci and related Liplje secondary graves, we have
8 72 ligatures. And for Orahovac and related Hodzici graves, we only have
10 Q. Thank you.
11 A. And I also have numbers for blindfolds, if you want.
12 Q. We'll deal that if we have enough time. That is even more
13 controversial. However, Mr. Janc, the information I have is that there
14 were 430 with ligatures, whereas some bands or ribbons on one hand can be
16 430, what do you say to that?
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you know Mr. Janc is not the proper
18 witness to deal with that issue.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Did you take into account the fact that you mentioned a moment
22 ago, that in the graves shell casings were found? And do you remember
23 that in one grave each large calibre casings were found? I think that
24 was Nova Kasaba or somewhere.
25 Did you come across that information?
1 A. Yes, I think I did see that one, yes.
2 Q. In which situation, Mr. Janc, do casings fall into a grave,
3 especially those coming from large calibres? Does that happen if the
4 fire -- the fire is coming into that grave, or, if one fires from that
5 grave, or, rather, trench? Where do -- where can casings be found?
6 Where do they fall? Where the target is, or where the firing is actually
7 taking place?
8 A. It can be actually anywhere. Anywhere you can find the shell
9 casings. Whenever -- you know, if you are firing, it would be usually
10 behind you somewhere. If you are inside a trench, it may be found
11 outside or inside the trench. And usually they are -- they are behind
12 or, you know, to one of your sides. That's how usually the ammunition
14 Q. Thank you.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, is it time?
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes. It's about time to adjourn for the day.
17 We'll resume tomorrow at 9.00.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.59 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 28th day of
21 March, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.